(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

State Libra 



X l"3 / 

I or- 3 82/6* 

c ^ ^fartfy (ttarnlma Courts 



N. C a 



1982- 83 



^ 



A' / 



- /' lo 







JVratual Report 

of tlje 

JVbtntntstrattlie (§fftcc of i\\t (Eourts 



The Cover: The Nash County Courthouse, in Nashville, North Carolina, an important 
and rare example of Colonial Revival public architecture in the State, was completed 
in 1921. It is constructed of brick and distinguished by fine ornamentation. The 
temple-form main block is flanked by small brick wings. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1982-83 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



The Honorable Joseph Branch, Chief Justice 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Chief Justice: 

In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the 
Seventeenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 
1982 — June 30, 1983. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and 
writing required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal 
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Divi- 
sion. The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the 
clerks of superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme 
Court and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts. 

Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been 
possible. 



Respectfully submitted, 



Franklin E. Freeman, Jr. 
Director 



February, 1984 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1983nort 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Part I 

The 1982-83 Judicial Year in Review 

The 1982-83 Judicial Year in Review 1 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5 

The Present Court System 8 

Organization and Operations in 1982-83 

The Supreme Court 12 

The Court of Appeals . 22 

The Superior Courts 30 

The District Courts 33 

District Attorneys . 36 

Clerks of Superior Court 39 

Juvenile Services Division 41 

Public Defenders 43 

The N.C. Courts Commission 45 

The Judicial Standards Commission 47 

Part III 
Court Resources 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 51 

Expenditures 54 

Receipts 56 

Distribution of Receipts 57 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 60 

Judicial Department Personnel 67 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data 

Trial Courts Case Data 71 

Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 75 

District Court Division Caseflow Data 119 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 8 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 11 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 12 

Supreme Court. Caseload Inventory 14 

Supreme Court. Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 15 

Supreme Court. Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 15 

Supreme Court. Disposition of Appeals 16 

Supreme Court. Manner of Disposition of Appeals 17 

Supreme Court. Type of Disposition of Petitions ..., 17 

Supreme Court. Pending Cases 18 

Supreme Court. Appeals Docketed and Disposed of, 

1 978-79— 1981-82 19 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 

1 978-79— 1981-82 20 

Supreme Court. Processing Time for Disposed Cases „ 21 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 22 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 24 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed 25 

Court of Appeals, Manner of Disposition of Cases 26 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Motions and Petitions 27 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1977 — 1981-82 28 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 29 

Judges of Superior Court 30 

District Court Judges 33 

District Attorneys 36 

Clerks of Superior Court 39 

Chief Court Counselors 41 

Public Defenders 43 

The N.C. Courts Commission 45 

The Judicial Standards Commission 47 

Part III 
Court Resources 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 51 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 52 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All 

State Agencies and Judicial Department 53 

General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 54 

Judicial Department Receipts 56 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 57 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 58 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 61 

Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 62 

Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 63 

Judicial Department Personnel 67 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data 

Superior Courts, Caseload 76 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 77 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends 78 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 79 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory 80 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Methods of Disposition 84 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition 85 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 89 

Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 94 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Estates and Special Proceedings 95 

Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases 99 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases 1 00 

Superior Courts, Methods of Disposition of Criminal Cases 104 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases 105 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases . . 1 09 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 1 20 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases 121 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases .122 

District Courts, General Civil and Domestic Relations Cases 123 

District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 1 24 

District Courts, Methods of Disposition of Civil Cases 1 28 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases ..... 1 29 

District Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 133 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions .138 

District Courts, Offenses and Conditions in Juvenile Petitions 1 40 

District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings, Juvenile Petitions 144 

District Courts, Trends of Criminal Cases 1 49 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 150 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 154 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Methods of Disposition 158 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 1 59 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases 163 

Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior Court and District Court Cases 1 68 

Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior and District Court Cases ....169 



in 



PARTI 



THE 1982-1983 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



THE 1982-83 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's 
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began 
July 1, 1982 and ended June 30, 1983. 

The Workload of the Courts 

As set out in more detail in Part II of this Report, case 
filings in the Supreme Court totalled 209 compared with 
241 filed during 1981-82. A total of 538 petitions were 
filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 68 1 in 198 1- 
82; and 74 petitions were allowed compared with 75 in 
1981-82. 

For the Court of Appeals for 1982-83, case filings were 
1,398 compared with l,413forthe 1981-82year. Petitions 
in 1982-83 totalled 483, compared with 581 during the 
1981-82 year. 

More detailed data on the appellate courts is included 
in Part II of this Annual Report. 

In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) 
increased by 1.1%, to a total of 85,488 in 1982-83, com- 
pared with 84,571 cases in 1981-82. Superior court case 
dispositions also increased, to a total of 84,797, com- 
pared with 82,165 in 1981-82. As case filings during the 
year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases 
pending at the end of the year increased by 69 1 , or 0.8%. 
Operations of the superior courts are summarized in Part 
II of this Report, and detailed information on the case- 
loads in the 100 counties and 34 judicial districts is pre- 
sented in Part IV. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospi- 
tal commitment hearings, the statewide total of district 
court filings (civil and criminal) during 1982-83 was 
1,445,571, an increase of 24,262 cases (1.7%) from 1981- 
82 filings of 1 ,421 ,307 cases. The only area of the district 
court caseload to register an increase in 1982-83 over the 
previous fiscal year was the motor vehicle criminal case 
category, which had total filings of 728,5 17 cases in 1982- 
83, an increase of 7.5% over the 677,247 cases filed in 
198 1 -82. There was a 2.9% drop in civil case filings from a 
total of 325,886 in 1981-82 to 316,539 in 1982-83. Most of 
this decrease was in civil magistrate filings, from 2 1 5,625 
cases in 1981-82 to 206,163 cases in 1982-83. There was a 
small increase of 248 cases in the domestic relations 
category. 

1983 Legislative Highlights 

Constitutional Amendment 

The General Assembly approved a proposed constitu- 
tional amendment to provide that district attorneys and 
the Attorney General must be authorized to practice law 
in North Carolina. This proposed amendment will be on 
the ballot for voter approval at the November, 1984 
general election (Chapter 298, 1983 Session Laws). 

Service As Emergency Judge 

The number of years of service a retired judge or justice 
must have to be eligible to serve as an emergency judge or 



justice was reduced from 15 to 12 (Chapter 784, 1983 
Session Laws). 

Pay Increases 

Funds were appropriated for a five percent pay 
increase for officials and employees of the Judicial 
Department, as was provided for State employees gener- 
ally. The freeze on merit increases was continued. Lon- 
gevity pay for elected officials in the Judicial Department 
was provided for the first time, with justices and judges to 
receive 4.8% if they have at least five years' service as a 
justice or judge and 9.6% if they have at least ten years' 
service. For the 83-84 fiscal year, clerks of court and 
district attorneys will receive a 4.8% longevity payment if 
they have at least five years of service in that elected 
office. Effective July 1, 1984, they will receive 9.6%) lon- 
gevity payment if they have at least ten years' service in 
office. 

Increase In Court Costs 

As recommended by the North Carolina Courts Com- 
mission, there was a general revision of the court fees; the 
first since 1965. The estimated increase in annual total 
revenue from court fees is about $10 million (Chapter 
713, 1983 Session Laws). 

Increase In Pay for Juror Service 

The pay for jury service was increased from $8 to $ 1 2 a 
day, for petit jury service; and from $2 to $6 a day for 
special proceedings (S 10 per day if the special proceeding 
lasts more than half a day). 

Appeal of Rate Cases 

Legislation was enacted to implement an amendment 
to the State Constitution which was approved by the 
voters in 1982. This change allows direct appeal of gen- 
eral rate decisions from the Utilities Commission to the 
N.C. Supreme Court (by-passing the Court of Appeals) 
(Chapter 526, 1983 Session Laws). 

Conference of District Attorneys 

A Conference of District Attorneys was established, to 
consist of all elected district attorneys. The Conference is 
authorized to employ an executive secretary, and has an 
appropriation of about $90,000 for the 1983-84 year. 

Indigent Defense 

As recommended by the Courts Commission, a separ- 
ate line item is contained in the 1 983-84 appropriation act 
for indigent defense costs, instead of this beingan item in 
the Judicial Department budget. 

There was an enactment to require the court to order 
parents to pay for a minor's legal services where the 
parents are financially able to do so (Chapter 726, 1983 



THE 1982-83 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



Session Laws). The Administrative Office of the Courts 
was directed to implement statewide a guardian ad litem 
program for juveniles (Chapter 761, 1983 Session Laws). 

N. C. Courts Commission 

The Courts Commission was restructured, to have 24 
voting members, with six members each appointed by the 
Speaker, the President of the Senate, the Governor, and 
the Chief Justice. The Governorcontinues to appoint the 
chairman. (Chapter 774. 1983 Session Laws). 

Revision of Evidence Law 

A comprehensive revision of the evidence statutes was 
enacted by the 1983 General Assembly (Chapter 701, 
1983 Session Laws). These changes were recommended 
by the Legislative Research Commission, which had been 
authorized to undertake a study of evidence laws by prior 
resolutions of the General Assembly. 

Administration of Estates by Affidavit 

The size of small estates that may be administered by 
affidavit to the clerk of superior court was increased from 
S5.000 to S10.000 (Chapter 65, 1983 Session Laws). The 
amount of indebtedness owed a decedent that can be paid 
to the clerk for administration was increased from $2,000 
to S5.000 (Chapter 65, 1983 Session Laws). 



Waiver of Trial for Minor Boating, 
Hunting and Fishing Violations 

Effective January 1, 1984, minor boating, hunting and 
fishing citations hay be handled as are minor traffic viola- 
tions, on written waiver of trial and entry of plea of guilty 
in accord with a uniform schedule of fines adopted by the 
Conference of Chief District Judges. (Chapter 586, 1983 
Session Laws). This eliminates the necessity for such 
persons to appear personally in court to enter pleas of 
guilty. 

Speedy Trial Laws 

The 1 20-day speedy trial requirement was made perma- 
nent, instead of a scheduled reduction to 90 days; and the 
exclusion of district court cases from the speedy-trial law 
was made permanent. Further, the 120-day requirement 
does not apply in a county that has fewer than eight 
regularly scheduled criminal or mixed weekly sessions of 
superior court each year (Chapter 571, 1983 Session 
Laws). 

Appropriations for Judicial Department 

At the regular 1983 Session, the General Assembly 
approved the following appropriations directly to the 
Judicial Department: $89,201,205 for the 1983-84 year 
and $87,181,828 for the 1984-85 year, for operations of 
the Judicial Department;and$14,106,078forthe 1983-84 
year, and $12,931,431 for the 1984-85 year, for indigent 
defense fees. A portion ($2,785,856) of the 83-84 amount 
for indigent defense fees was for payment for services in 
the latter part of the 1982-83 fiscal year. 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1982-83 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi- 
cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeated 
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, 
and finally the enactment of some reform measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a General 
(or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute devel- 
oped over the appointment of associate justices. The 
Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the 
chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the 
power to appoint the associate justices. Other controver- 
sies developed concerning the creation and jurisdiction of 
the courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the 
Assembly's position was that judge appointments should 
be for good behavior as against the royal governor's 
decision for life appointment. State historians have noted 
that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and 
the judicial structure in the province was grounded on 
laws enacted by the legislature", which was more familiar 
with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 
142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between 
periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like good 
behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which con- 
tained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) 
and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such enact- 
ment were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate 
system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. 
It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement 
between local and royal partisans. As a result, North 
Carolina was without higher courts until after Independ- 
ence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative functions 
were combined in the authority of the justices of the 
peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained largely 
intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the 
county court which continued in use from about 1670 to 
1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the 
peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the 
governor on the recommendation of the General Assem- 
bly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On 
the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts 
of limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, 
singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General 
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law 
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized 
three superior court judges and created judicial districts. 
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of 
each district twice a year, under a system much like the 
one that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little 



distinction in terminology between General Court and 
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms 
Supreme Court and Superior Court were also inter- 
changeable during the period immediately following the 
Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi- 
ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary 
caused complaint and demands for reform. "(Lefler and 
Newsome, 29 1 , 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting 
judge opinions, and insufficient number of judges, and 
lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, 
although the greatest weakness was considered to be the 
lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Confer- 
ence to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the 
districts. This court was continued and made permanent 
by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put 
their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. 
The Court of Conference was changed in name to the 
Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear appeals in 
1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, 
however, there was still no conception of an alternative to 
judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which 
they had themselves heard in the districts in panels of as 
few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an 
independent three-judge Supreme Court was created for 
review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State 
was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six 
judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a 
quorum as before. 

The County Court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of 
local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it 
more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover 
from the English legal arrangement — the distinction 
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. 
The County Court's control of local government was 
abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, 
arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated 
that the aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy 
justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus prevent 
crime". The membership of the Supreme Court was 
raised to five, and the selection of the justices (including 
the designation of the chief justice) and superior court 
judges (raised in number to 12) was taken from the legis- 
lature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to 
be filled by the governor until the next election. The 
Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions - The County 
Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a 
quorum — was eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities 
were divided between the Superior Courts and the indi- 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



vidual justices of the peace, who were retained as separate 
judicial officers with limited jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Con- 
stitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court 
justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. 
The General Assembly was given the power to appoint 
justices of the peace, instead of the governor. Most of the 
modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, 
however, were left, and the judicial structure it had estab- 
lished continued without systematic modification through 
more than half of the 20th century. (A further constitu- 
tional amendment approved by the voters in November, 
! vvv . returned the Supreme Court membership to five, 
and the number of superior court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time sys- 
tematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This 
accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court 
system was most evident at the lower, local court level, 
where hundreds of courts specially created by statute 
operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, 
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with 
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts of 
limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and 
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divided 
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The 
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the coun- 
ties) and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The 
clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate and 
often also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There 
were specialized branches of superior court in some coun- 
ties for matters like domestic relations and juvenile 
offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of 
these local court levels were more than 1 80 recorder-type 
courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, 
municipal recorder's courts and township recorder's 
courts: the general county courts, county criminal courts 
and special county courts; the domestic relations courts 
and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been estab- 
lished individually by special legislative acts more than a 
half-century earlier. Others had been created by general 
lav. across the State since 1919. About half were county 
courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction 
included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), prelim- 
inary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, 
who were usually part-time, were variously elected or 
appointed locally. 

At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar 
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up 



to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace 
also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court 
officials were compensated by the fees they exacted, and 
they provided their own facilities. 

Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision 
of the court system received the attention and support of 
Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged 
the leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to 
pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was estab- 
lished as an agency of the North Carolina Bar Associa- 
tion, and that Committee issued its report, calling for 
reorganization, at theend of 1958. A legislative Constitu- 
tional Commission, which worked with the Court Study 
Committee, finished its report early the next year. Both 
groups called for the structuring of an all-inclusive court 
system which would be directly state-operated, uniform 
in its organization throughout the State and centralized 
in its administration. The plan was for a simplified, 
streamlined and unified structure. A particularly impor- 
tant part of the proposal was the elimination of the local 
satutory courts and their replacement by a single District 
Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be abol- 
ished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate 
would function within the District Court as a subordinate 
judicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were rein- 
troduced and approved at the 1961 session. The Constitu- 
tional amendments were approved by popular vote in 
1 962, and three years later the General Assembly enacted 
statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By the end 
of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had been 
incorporated into the new system, whose unitary nature 
was symbolized by the name, General Court of Justice. 
The designation of the entire 20th century judicial system 
as a single, statewide "court," with components for vari- 
ous types and levels of caseload, was adapted from North 
Carolina's earlier General Court, whose full venue ex- 
tended to all of the 17th century counties. 

After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has continued. 
In 1965, the Constitution wasamended to provide forthe 
creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was 
amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme Court to 
censure or remove judges upon the recommendation of a 
Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of 
judges, persistent efforts have been made in the 1970's to 
obtain legislative approval of amendments to the State 
Constitution, to appoint judges according to "merit" 
instead of electing them by popular, partisan vote. The 
proposed amendments have received the backing of a 
majority of the members of each house, but not the 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 

three-fifths required to submit constitutional amend- significant issue will be before the General Assembly 

ments to a vote of the people. It seems likely that this again for consideration. 

Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888) I North Carolina Reports 835-876. 

Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 

Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government 

Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular 1973. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 



Recommendations 
from Judicial I" 
| standards Commission | 
I 1 



Original Jurisdit lion 

All felons cases, civil 
cases in excess ol SI 0.000** 



I 1 

Decisions of 

I Mosl Administrative 

Agencies 





( 1 

Final Order of 

—J Utilities Commission in I 
General Rate Case* 



SUPERIOR 
COURTS 

68 Judges 



Original Jurisdit turn 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
(condemnations, adoptions, 

partitions, foreclosures. 



criminal cases 
(lor trial de novo) 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 

(100) 



ivil cases 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 

142 Judges 



Magistrates 

(611) 



s ®. 



r 



Decisions of Industrial 
Commission, State Barj 
>J Property Tax Commission, 
j Commissioner of Insurance, 
Bd. of State Contract Appeals 



"1 



L 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not assigned 
to magistrates; probable cause 
hearings; civil cases $10,000** 
or less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty pleas: worthless check 
misdemeanors $500 or less; 
small claims $1,000 or less* 



i Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving comstitutional 
questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals 
decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 

12) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 

(3 j As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life 
imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. In all other cases 
appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts incases where delay 
would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 



ive lulj I. 1983. appeals in general rate cases go directly to Supreme Court instead of Court of Appeals. 
'* I he district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the 
proper division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper 
i for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243). 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute 
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, 
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an 
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a 
District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is comprised of the super- 
ior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the 
100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into 
judicial districts (34 at the present time), and one or more 
superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial 
districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is 
elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division is comprised of the district 
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the 
State into a convenient number of local court districts and 
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district 
court must sit in at least one place in each county. The 
General Assembly has provided that districts for pur- 
poses of the district court are co-terminous with superior 
court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for 
one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county 
"who shall be officers of the district court." 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department, "stating that "The General 
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial 
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully 
pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the govern- 
ment, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other 
than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General 
Court of Justice"and "Judicial Department" are almost, 
but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judi- 
cial Department encompasses all of the levels of court 
designated as the General Court of Justice plus all admin- 
istrative and ancillary services within the Judicial De- 
partment. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between 
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of 
courts are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page. 

Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original juris- 
diction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses 
are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to 
accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines 
in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of 
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors 
are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary, 
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony 
cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. 

Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district 
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury 
available at the district court level; appeal from the dis- 
trict courts'judgments in criminal cases is to the superior 
courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life- 
imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are appealed 



to the Supreme Court), appeal from the superior courts is 
to the Court of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of 
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and 
estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over 
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con- 
demnations under the authority of eminent domain, and 
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the 
superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile 
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for invol- 
untary commitment to a mental hospital, and are the 
"proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount 
in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount in con- 
troversy is $1,000 or less and the plaintiff in the case so 
requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case 
for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions 
may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for 
civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from 
the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the 
North Carolina Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most 
administrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in 
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of 
the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 
7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, 
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain 
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and 
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The 
Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing 
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts 
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supple- 
ment those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court designates one of thejudges of the Court 
of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsi- 
ble for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals. 

The chart on the following page illustrates specific 
responsibilities for administration of the trial courts 
vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The 
Chief Justice appoints the Director and an Assistant 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; this 
Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's 
administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of 
superior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme 
Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court 
judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, 
the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge for 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



each oi the State's 34 judicial districts from among the 
elected district court judges of the respective districts. 
These judges have responsibilities for the scheduling of 
the district courts and magistrates' courts within their 
respective districts, along with other administrative respon- 
sibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible 
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business 
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its 
functions are fiscal management, personnel services, 
information and statistical services, supervision of record 
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the 
legislative and executive departments of government, 
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa- 
tion and training, coordination of the program for provi- 



sion of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile proba- 
tion and after-care, trial court administrator services, 
planning, and general administrative services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk 
for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the 
clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar 
committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective 
July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to- 
day calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of 
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some 
districts, under the supervision of the senior resident 
superior court judge and chief district court judge. The 
criminal case calendars in both superior and district 
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective 
district. 



10 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 




CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



(34) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 



i 



Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 



i 



(35) District 
Attorneys 




(34) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



■The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who 
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the 
pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 34 judicial districts from thejudges elected in 
the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and 
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective 
courts. 

6 ln addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping 
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the 
chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk 
of superior court. 



11 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Justice 
JOSEPH BRANCH 



Associate Justices 



J. WILLIAM COPELAND 
JAMES G. EXUM, JR. 
LOUIS B. MEYER 



BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. 

HARRY C. MARTIN 

HENRY E. FRYE 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 



Retired Justices 



J. WILL PLESS, JR. 
I. BEVERLY LAKE 
DAN K. MOORE 



WALTER E. BROCK 

J. FRANK HUSKINS 

DAVID M. BRITT 



Clerk 
J. Gregory Wallace 



Librarian 
Frances H. Hall 



•As of 30 June 1983. 



12 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 



The Supreme Court 



At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six 
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the 
voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme 
Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first 
Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the 
first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in 
panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on 
each case. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the 
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges 
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial 
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic- 
tion includes: 

— cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals 
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques- 
tions and cases in which there has been dissent in 
the Court of Appeals); 

— cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commis- 
sion (cases involving final order or decision in a 
general rate matter); 

— criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sen- 
tenced to death or life imprisonment); and 

— cases in which review has been granted in the 
Supreme Court's discretion. 

Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly 
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would 
likely cause subsantial harm or when the workload of the 
Appellate Division is such that the expeditious adminis- 
tration of justice requires it. However, most appeals are 
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise 
and control the proceedings of the other courts of the 
General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to 
prescribe the rules of practice and procedure for the trial 



court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the 
General Assembly. The schedule of superior court ses- 
sions in the 100 counties is approved yearly, by the 
Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the 
Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel- 
late Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme 
Court. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and 
an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from 
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief 
District Court Judge from among the district judges in 
each of the State's 34 judicial districts. He assigns super- 
ior court judges, who regularly rotate from district to 
district, to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 
100 counties, and he is also empowered to transfer district 
court judges to other districts for temporary or special- 
ized duty. The Chief Justice appoints three of the seven 
members of the Judicial Standards Commission — a 
judge of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commis- 
sion's chairman, one superior court judge and one district 
court judge. 



Operations of the Court, 1982-83 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1982-83 fiscal year amounted to $1,464,289, an increase 
of 7.2% over total 1981-82 expenditures of $1,365,955. 
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1982-83 con- 
stituted 1.5% of all General Fund expenditures for the 
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the 
fiscal year. 

A total of 33 1 appealed cases were before the Supreme 
Court during the fiscal year, including 122 cases pending 
on July 1, 1982 and 209 cases filed during the year. A total 
of 188 appealed cases were disposed of, with 143 cases 
remaining pending on June 30, 1983. 

A total of 65 1 petitions (requests to appeal) were before 
the Court during the 1982-83 year, with 563 petitions 
disposed of and 88 pending as of June 30, 1983. 

More detailed data on the Court's workload is pres- 
ented on the following pages. 



13 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 

Supreme Court Caseload Inventory 

July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 



Petitions for Review 

Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal 

Postconviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Total Petitions for Review 

Appeals 

Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic 

appeals 
Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 
Other civil 
Petitions for review granted that became other civil 

appeals 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 
Other criminal 
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal 

appeals 
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction 

remedy cases 
Administrative agency decision 
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of 

administrative agency decision 

Total appeals 

Other Proceedings 

Extraordinary writs 
Advisory opinion 
Rule amendments 
Motions 

Total other proceedings 



Pending 






Pending 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


7 


20 


23 


4 


2 


2 


4 





45 


154 


162 


37 


32 


204 


209 


27 


17 


114 


123 


X 


10 


44 


42 


12 



113 



X 
4 

122 



538 



II 
12 

209 



563 



15 
188 



88 






2 


2 





3 


2 


5 

















1 





1 





10 


20 


20 


10 


17 


29 


30 


16 


9 


14 


5 


IX 


47 


74 


56 


65 


13 


20 


24 


9 


x 


24 


20 


12 



4 
7 

143 



3 


70 


71 


2 

















4 


4 





13 


350 


360 


3 


16 


424 


435 


5 



14 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 

Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 



Cases Argued 

Civil 
Criminal 

Total cases argued 



70 
103 

173 



Submissions Without Argument 

By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d)) 
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f)) 

Total submissions without argument 

Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 



10 


10 
183 



Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court 

July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 



Petitions for Review 

Civil Domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal 

Postconviction Remedy 

Administrative Agency Decision 

Total Petitions for Review 



Granted 



Denied Dismissed/ Withdrawn Total Disposed 



2 


20 


1 


23 





4 





4 


29 


132 


1 


162 


29 


180 





209 


2 


85 


36 


123 


12 


30 





42 


74 


451 


38 


563 



Other Proceedings 

Extraordinary Writs 
Rule Amendments 
Advisory Opinion 
Motions 

Total Other Proceedings 



17 



54 



71 

4 



360 

435 



15 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Published Opinion 



Case Types 

Civil domestic 
Juvenile 
Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 
Criminal (life sentence) 
Other criminal 
Postconviction remedy 
Administrative agency 
decision 

Totals 









Reversed 




Total 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


: 





1 


3 





6 


i 














1 


7 


7 


2 


17 


1 


34 


4 








1 





5 


36 


1 





II 


3 


51 


3 


3 


7 


13 





26 


1 














1 


5 


2 


4 


7 





18 



54 



13 



14 



52 



142 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision 



Case Types 

Civil domestic 
Juvenile 
Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 
Criminal (life sentence) 
Other criminal 
Postconviction remedy 
Administrative agency 
decision 

Totals 









Reversed 




Total 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


1 














1 




















10 


2 





1 





13 




















2 





1 





2 


5 


II 


1 


1 








13 




















2 





1 


1 





4 



26 



36 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal 
Case Types 



Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other criminal 

Postconviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Totals 



Dismissed or 
Withdrawn 




3 
o 

5 

2 

10 



16 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 

Manner of Disposition of Appeals in the Supreme Court 
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 




DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN 



PER CURIAM DECISIONS 



Type of Disposition of Petitions in the Supreme Court 
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 




GRANTED 



DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN 



17 





f-i 




oc 




CN 




— 




» 




© 




m 




a> 




B 




3 




-5 


m 


«•- 


oc 





r^ 


Efl 


SC 


« 


OS 


V 


~~ l 


CX 


/: 


< 


~~ 


T3 


/) 


C 


^ 


« 


o 


3 


< 


7- 


K 


>■ 


U 


CC 


£» 


09, 


o 


t/i 


Q 

< 


U 

OJJ 

B 






£ 


"3 


o 


c 


- 


a. 


< 


*- 


Si 


3 







>r 


u 


< 


u 


w 


£ 


K 


0; 








X 



V 



3 



>. 
* 

as 

o 

Z 





ex 






MM 


c 


en 




OS 




V 






-5 


09 




o 


c 


08 




H 


0) 

a. 


U 


"3 
41 

3 


OX) 


c 


■a 

ov 
3 


ex 

L. 


■3 





S3 

4> 


c 


'3 


OX 


C8 


4) V 

a, q 


< 


"3 

E 

o 














u. 








(-. 








' — ' 








— , 








OX 




O 


B 


4> 




-. 


4* 


_. 




O 


E 


u 




<_ 


3 


O 




>-> 


OX 


"B 




■o 
so 


l~ 

< 


E 




4- 




o 




OS 




ox 


ex 


JM 




•** 


C 


04 




OJ 


cu 


-. 


_. 


3 


"3 




o 


< 




m 


T3 

E 


ox 




JIB 




c 


0* 


■^ 




** 


*-* 


a 
_2 




4» 


'5 


u 


"i- 





it 


Q. 


co 


■O 


< 


Q. 
< 




E 

o 








41 






ox 


U 






c 


c 


ox 


# 


■~; 


08 


C 


■a 

u. 


41 
-- 


'E 


'8 



u 





ox 
o 


* 


4> 


Q 


u 


< 


OS 


• 

i- 
0- 


E 

e 
k> 











© on 

IT) !»-» 

-. . OS 

AQ 



-- Q 

Os 



o 



08 

Q 



AQ 



O V) 

On >> 

I 08 

3 Q 



? 5? 

oQ 

AQ 



;q 



en 



08 





AQ 



SQ 



* *? 



08 

©Q 



— 08 

AQ 



® 5? 

oQ 



4) 

D. 

H 



08 



o o 



o o 



o o 



o o 



o o 



o o 



o o 



E 
o 



u 



SO 00 w^ — * (N 



-t — <N <"S O — i 



\D — i <N — — i -J- 



sD tJ- o <N -i V> 



o w-i — ' o o 



<N O -t -t o O 



CN O O in O O 



Cs| O <N O O O 



— O <^4 O O O 



CJ O O r-i O -- 



o csi en fN o o 



O «N PO O O O 



O O ^O — i o o 



O -4- Tf O O O 



O <N iO O O O 



o <n r~ o o o 



« (J 



<u o 

c c 

5 2 

en C 

•Jj &0 — I 



o 



u 
■B 



c 

I 

u 



03 

c 

I 
u 



1J 



OJ 
E 

u 

c 

o 

y 

'> 
c 

o 



o 

0- 



u 

"B 

>. 

c 



c 

E 
< 






S 

c 
o 



Q. 

a 

u 

o 

ja 

rn ^> 

•a 

o 



08 

41 

a 

a. 

< 



o 
H 



03 



-O 
03 



a. 
o. 

03 



-a 
u 

o 



03 
< 



IX, 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 
Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1978-79—1982-83 



400. 



300. 



N 
I! 
M 
B 
E 
R 

O 200. 
F- 

C 

A 

S 
1 

s 



100. 



Appeals Docketed 
Appeals Disposed of 




209 



1978-79 1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 1982-83 



19 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 

Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1978-79—1982-83 



MK> 



N 
U 
M 
B 

I 
k 

(i 
f 

( 

\ 

s 

I 

s 



600 



400 



200 



Petitions Docketed 
Petitions Allowed 



499 



65 




74 



1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



20 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 

Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases 

(Total time in days from docketing to decision) 

July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 



Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 
Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 
Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 
Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases 
Administrative agency decision 

Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative 
agency decision 

Totals 



Number 






of Cases 


Median 


Mean 


2 


— 


147.5 


5 


200 


210.0 








0.0 


l 


180 


180.0 


20 


155 


214.1 


30 


155 


203.6 


5 


315 


307.0 


56 


185 


201.9 


24 


135 


159.7 


20 


140 


156.3 


1 


260 


260.0 


15 


150 


160.5 


9 


165 


174.3 



188 



165 



192.5 



21 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Judge 
EARL W. VAUGHN 



Judges 



R.A. HEDR1CK 
GERALD ARNOLD 
JOHN WEBB 
HUGH A. WELLS 
CECIL J. HILL 
WILLIS P. WHICHARD 



CHARLES L. BECTON 

CLIFTON E. JOHNSON 

E. MAURICE BRASWELL 

EUGENE H. PHILLIPS 

SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR. 



Retired Chief Judge 
NAOMI E. MORRIS 



HUGH B. CAMPBELL 
FRANK M. PARKER 



Retired Judges 



EDWARD B. CLARK 
ROBERT M. MARTIN 



Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



*Asof 30 June 1983 



22 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 



The Court of Appeals 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The 
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other 
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme 
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular 
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by 
popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the 
Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number 
of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides 
over the panel of which he or she is a member and 
designates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by 
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chair- 
man of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals 
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The 
Court also hears appeals directly from the Industrial 
Commission; certain final orders or decisions of the 
North Carolina State Bar; and the Commissioner of 
Insurance; the State Board of Contract Appeals; and 
appeals from certain final orders or decisions of the 
Property Tax Commission. (Appeals from the decisions 
of other administrative agencies lie first within the juris- 
diction of the superior courts.) 



In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial 
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office 
a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) 
recommendation would be considered by the Chief Judge 
and the six judges next senior in service on the Court of 
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis- 
sion's chairman). Such seven-member panel would have 
sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recom- 
mendation. 



Expenses of the Court, 1982-83 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 
1982-83 fiscal year totalled $2,025,252, an increase of 
4. 1 % over 198 1-82 expenditures of $ 1 ,945,08 1 . Expendi- 
tures for the Court of Appeals during 1982-83 amounted 
to 2.2% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of 
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. 
This percentage share of the total is virtually identical to 
the Court of Appeals' percentage share of the Judicial 
Department total in the 1981-82 fiscal year. 



Case Data, 1982-83 

A total of 1,398 appealed cases were filed before the 
Court of Appeals during the period, July 1, 1982 - June 
30, 1983. A total of 1,186 cases were disposed of during 
the same period. During the same year, a total of 483 
petitions and 1 ,673 motions were filed before the Court of 
Appeals. 

Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals 
is shown in the tables and graph on the following pages. 



23 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 

Cases on Appeal Filings Dispositions 

Civil cases appealed from district courts 283 

Civil cases appealed from superior courts 513 

Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 60 

Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 542 

Total 1,398 1,186 



Petitions 

Allowed 73 

Denied 386 

Remanded 1 

Total 483 460 



Motions 

Allowed 1,221 

Denied 468 

Remanded 2 

Total 1,673 1,691 

Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 3,554 3,337 



24 



Totals 



INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1982-June30, 1983 





Judicial 




Cases Filed 




Other 


Total 
Cases 


Total 


Judicial 


Appeals from 


Appeals from Superior Court 


Cases 


Division 


District 


District Courts 


Civil 


Criminal 


Appeals 


Filed 


Disposed 


1 


1 


7 


9 


10 


o 


26 


55 




2 


4 


8 


29 





41 


27 




3 


9 


22 


IK 





49 


46 




4 


1 I 


14 


37 





62 


49 




5 


9 


9 


17 





35 


54 




6 


6 


8 


10 





24 


15 




7 


5 


13 


11 





29 


23 




8 


7 


16 


29 





52 


55 


[] 


9 


4 


9 


10 


o 


23 


2! 




10 


17 


7S 


29 


60 


184 


168 




II 


L) 


12 


8 





29 


22 




12 


1 1 


10 


35 





56 


45 




13 


4 


6 


9 





19 


9 




14 


5 


IS 


12 





35 


34 




15A/B* 


9 


21 


13 





43 


39 




16 


5 


7 


2S 





40 


25 


111 


17A/B* 


2 


12 


8 





22 


22 




18 


17 


31 


20 





68 


68 




19A/B* 


14 


19 


IX 





51 


43 




20 


12 


17 


13 





42 


3! 




21 


29 


54 


29 





92 


66 




22 


8 


10 


18 





36 


39 




21 


9 


6 


1 i 





26 


19 


[V 


24 


1 


6 


5 





12 


II 




25 


14 


22 


16 





52 


46 




26 


20 


38 


40 





98 


84 




27A/B* 


9 


12 


30 





51 


36 




28 


6 


[9 


15 





40 


26 




29 


12 


13 


12 





3 7 


2 7 




30 


8 


14 


2 





24 


21 



283 



513 



542 



Ml 



1,398 



1,186 



* Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19 A and I9B, and Districts 27Aand 27Bare shown. 
Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



2S 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 



Cases Disposed by Written Opinion 



Judicial 


Judicial 


Cases 


Division 


District 


Affirmed 


1 


1 




22 




: 




[9 




3 




n 




4 




24 




5 




24 




6 




1 1 




7 




19 




S 




33 


11 


9 




16 




10 




100 




1 1 




14 




12 




35 




13 




8 




14 




26 




15A, 


B* 


31 




16 




21 


111 


17A 


B* 


13 




18 




46 




19A, 


B* 


35 




20 




22 




21 




42 




22 




J] 




23 




17 


IV 


24 




10 




25 




u 




26 




5K 




27A, 


B* 


24 




28 




19 




24 




18 




30 




17 





Cases Affirmed 


Total Cases 






Cases 


in Part, Reversed 


by Written 


Other Cases 


Total Cases 


Reversed 


in Part 


Opinion 


Disposed 


Disposed 


1 1 





33 


2 


35 


6 


2 


27 





27 


13 





45 


1 


46 


13 


5 


47 


2 


49 


3 


1 


28 


6 


34 


4 





15 





15 


3 





22 


1 


23 


16 


1 


50 


5 


55 


2 


1 


19 


2 


21 


44 


6 


150 


18 


168 


4 


1 


19 


3 


22 


9 





44 


1 


45 


1 





9 





9 


6 


1 


33 


1 


34 


5 


2 


38 


1 


39 


3 





24 


1 


25 


5 


1 


19 


3 


22 


is 


3 


64 


4 


68 


5 


1 


4! 


2 


43 


6 


2 


30 


1 


31 


12 


5 


59 


7 


66 


5 


2 


38 


1 


39 


2 





19 





19 


1 





11 





11 


6 


2 


42 


4 


46 


16 


3 


77 


7 


84 


7 


2 


33 


3 


36 


3 


1 


23 


3 


26 


7 





25 


2 


27 


4 





21 





21 



TOTALS 



826 



237 



412 



1,105 



XI 



1,186 



* Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19 A and 1 9 B, and Districts 27 A and 27 Bare shown. 
Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



26 



_ 4» 







-** 


o 






o a 






H £ 






a 




4 


c 

SB *"" — 




S0 


8-8 J 




c 







S 8.5 






t/2 





■ft a o. 

£ ■- o 

Q 


J 






■a 


< 






4) 

•a 


w 






c 


a* 






C5 

E 


a. 




■o 


< 




4* 

o 


a 


O 




a. 

IT) 

5 


■a 


H 




wi 


E 

41 


K 




B 

.2 


Q 


D 




-** 




O 




w 


-o 


u 




Oh 


u 
s 


UJ 






_© 


X 






5 


H 






T3 


w 






4> 


as 


m 




c 


o 


00 




s 

41 


u- 


-H 


■a 


u 


r 


1/1 


eg 


OS 


O 


© 




(Si 


V 


an 

5 


* 


z 


B 


"E 


O 


3 
■ 


c 

.2 


41 

Q 


H 


r* 


*■* 






9© 


a 




H 


On 


£ 


41 


On 


^* 




o 


Q 


►» 




< 


Z 


3 

^8 






to 

z 

o 




SI 




H b 


a=g 






H 






O 




(0 


£ 






m< 

o 




Cm 


> 






£2! 




1/5 


O 




._ _4> 


H 




z 






UJ 




> 






z 









in ro <n — oo no t^ »n 
■^ m oo o o — * ro in 






OS i^i vO f'l On t ■* 
(N OOfl ^ O t W 



— O >/"> O <n O <~""> 
<n oo in r- Tt «n <n 






SI U 



■o 

3 



— OOOOOOO 



oooooooo 



OOOOOOO 



OOOOOOO 



— y 



oooooooo 



oo \D i^i — ' m vo vo 't 



— 'OJroioroOOfN 



OOOOOOOO 



oo r-- m on on -*3- r^ 

— ■ — i r^ 



cni en m no it) cn| rvi 



(N\D(n|0('JvOOI v 

lOlTiOOONON— ^-^-lO 



ONOONOOOONNONOr-- 



•^■TtNOoOND — rn-^- 



OOOOOOOO 



>/~l (~N| CNl — — I 



— iriOfN — ro-HV-) 



ooooo — oo 



CNlt^oOONNONOt^r*") 
NO — <N *— <N 



O ■** m <N ro o — < rn 
Cn| 



no r-~ — ' on c-j — o n 



if)f*1M"t>O l C\0(N| 
r-- tN rs| — cn| 



— Tfr<-ii^\OinTfO 

M0O'\t\D(Nwirir~ 
r-4 



o — o o o o o 



OOOOOOO ~* 



oo r-- rn in — . o 



rj 



CnI <~n| — i — Cn| — o 



o — o o o o o 



O NO O O ON o ^r 



on oo c\i r- r- en oo 
^t — (N iri (N rs 



ON On io m oo m en 
CA OO en in — rf c~> 



»~n| On NO OO nO — • (N 



r~ o on m cn| ■<* — 

— r~ — en On en en 



en O m On t~- ON ^ 
— Cn| 



O ■* en NO <N r<") Cn| 



OOOOOOO 



nS 
00 






— r^irn^ioNor^oo 



On O — (N fl 



SB 

< 

■^ >o NO 



93 



PQ 



< < 

M)OuNO-Mf1 

— — -^ <n rsi cni o4 



X 



Tf IT) NO r- 0O ON O 

rs| <~n| cni rg oni r^ rn 



3 



C 

a 






C 
^3 



















-o 


















c 


















K) 


ITi 


— . 


f 1 


r- 


jC 


r- 


o 


SO 


DQ 




n 


m 


— 




— 




•€> 
















T 


0> 

C 
< 


m 


IT) 


IT) 


Xi 


jO 


O 


r- 


— I 


^3N 




T 


ON 


r*i 


r ] 


m 




=1 


s: 
U 

Ui 

s. 

Q 

c6 


— 


-1- 


rNi 


-1- 


r~ 


r~. 


<r , 


NC 


r~- 


i- 1 


JO 


</■> 


nO 


-r 


NO 


n 


1=1 


T3 



en <N 


o 


in 


O 


re, 


r~ 


r»i 


u_ 




m 










00 


s 

PQ 
in 

-o 

c 


O0 (N 


ri 


o> 


r- 


t 


JC 


r*5 


^3 


— r~- 


r i 


-T 


m 


in 


1 ' 


N© 


< 



3 o 
II 



■J-. 




•j 





E 


_£3 


H 


o 


^ 



u 



27 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

1977-1983 



3000 



1500 



N 

I 
M 

!•; 
E 

R 





I 



2000 



1500 



1000 



500 




1977 



1978 



1979 



1980 



1981 



1981-82 



1982-83 



Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals. During 
1982-83, filings exceeded dispositions by 235, the largest difference since 1977. 



28 





en 

c 













w 


s 


._, 


w 


5 


H 
GO 




> 


cs 


CO 


■■r, 




*=> 


H 


CJ 


(K 




-J 


K 


O 


5 


o 


__< 




,2 


H 


°S 


z 


•a 


u 


3 


CO 


"-5 


u 


93 


a. 


.5 
o 




03 


H 


J= 




■*-» 




b. 




© 




z 




UQ^ 



29 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 

(As of June 30, 1983) 



District 

1 



13 

14 



FIRST DIVISION 

J. Herbert Small. Elizabeth City 

Elbert S. Peel. Jr.. Williamston 

David E. Reid, Jr.. Greenville 

Herbert O. Phillips. III. Morehead City 

Henry L. Stevens. III. Kenansville 
James R. Strickland. Jacksonville 

Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 

Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount 

R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive 
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 

SECOND DIVISION 

Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 

James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 
Henry V. Barnett, Jr., Raleigh 
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh 

Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn 

Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

Thomas H. Lee, Durham 
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama 
John C. Martin, Durham 



I5A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 
15B F. Gordon Battle. Chapel Hill 
16 Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton 



THIRD DIVISION 
District 

17A Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth 

I7B James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 

18 Charles T. Kivett, Greensboro 

W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Edward K. Washington, Greensboro 

19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 
James C. Davis, Concord 

19B Hal H. Walker, Asheboro 

20 F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 
William H. Helms, Wingate 

21 William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 

22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 
Peter W. Hairston, Advance 

23 Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall 

25 Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 

26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte 
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 
William T. Grist, Charlotte 
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 

27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

28 Robert E. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

29 Hollis M. Owens, Rutherfordton 

30 James U. Downs, Franklin 



'In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed lirst. 



<0 



SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Clarence P. Cornelius, Mooresville 
James A. Beatty, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 
Arthur L. Lane, Fayetteville 



John B. Lewis, Jr., Farmville 
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh 
Russell G. Walker, Asheboro 
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 



EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 

George M. Fountain, Tarboro 
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1983) 

A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh, President 

Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer, President- Elect 

D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington, Vice President 

James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem, 
Secretary- Treasurer 

J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, and Robert E. Gaines, 
Gastonia, Additional Executive Committee Members 



J1 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 



The Superior Courts 



North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris- 
diction trial courts for the state. In 1981-82. there were 60 
"resident" superior court judges elected to office in the 34 
judicial districts for eight-year-terms by Statewide ballot. 
In addition, eight "special" superior court judges are 
appointed by the Governor for four-year terms. 

Jurisdiction 



The superior court has original jurisdiction in all fel- 
ony cases and in those misdemeanor cases which origi- 
nate by grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are 
tried first in the district court, from which conviction may 
be appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a 
jury. No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in 
district court.) The superior court is the proper court for 
the trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy 
exceeds S 1 0,000. and it has jurisdiction over appeals from 
administrative agencies except the Industrial Commis- 
sion, certain rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, 
the Board of Bar Examiners of the North Carolina State 
Bar. the Board of State Contract Appeals, and the Prop- 
erty Tax Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie 
directly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.* 
Regardless of the amount in controversy, the original 
civil jurisdiction of the superior court does not include 
domestic relations cases, which are heard in the district 
courts, or probate and estates matters and certain special 
proceedings heard first by the clerk of superior court. 
Rulings of the clerk are within the appellate jurisdiction 
of the superior court. 

Administration 

The 100 counties of North Carolina were grouped into 
34 judicial districts during 1982-83. Each district has at 
least one resident superior court judge who has certain 
administrative responsibilities for his home district, such 
as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi- 
nal case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.) 
In districts with more than one resident superior court 
judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court 
bench exercises these supervisory powers. 

The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions 
for the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the 
map on Page 29. Within the division, a resident superior 
court judge is required to rotate among the judicial dis- 
tricts, holding court for at least six months in each, then 
moving on to his next assignment. A special superior 



court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 
100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are 
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under 
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions 
(a week each) of superior court are held annually in each 
of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have 
more than the Constitutional minimum of two weeks of 
superior court annually. Many larger counties have 
superior court in session about every week in the year. 

Expenditures 

A total of $ 10,256,492 was expended on the operations 
of the superior courts during the 1982-83 fiscal year. This 
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 68 super- 
ior court judges, and salaries and expense for court report- 
ers and secretarial staff for superior court judges. The 
1982-83 expenditures for the superior courts amounted 
to 10.9% of total General Fund expenditures for the 
operations of the entire Judicial Department during the 
1982-83 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 
85,488 cases were filed in the superior courts during 
1982-83, an increase of 917 cases (1.1%) over the total of 
84,571 cases that were filed in 1981-82. There was some 
decrease in civil case filings in the superior courts during 
1982-83 compared with the previous year (dropping from 
14,964 to 13,894). This decrease is probably due to a 
statutory amendment, effective July 1, 1982, which pro- 
vided that the district court division is the proper division 
for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in con- 
troversy is $ 10,000 (formerly $5,000) or less. This change 
had the effect of shifting some civil cases from the super- 
ior courts to the district courts. This small decrease in 
civil case filings in the superior courts was more than 
offset by an increase in criminal case filings (from 69,607 
in 1981-82 to 71,594 in 1982-83). 

Superior court case dispositions increased from 82,165 
in 1981-82 to 84,797 in 1982-83. However, the disposi- 
tions did not quite equal the number of cases filed. As a 
result, there was a small increase (1.9%) in the total 
number of superior court cases pending, from 35,622 at 
the beginning of the fiscal year to a total of 36,313 on 
June 30, 1983. 

More detailed information on the flow of cases through 
the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 



endment to Article IV, Section I 2(1) of the State Constitution was approved by the voters at the June, 1982 election, and effective July 15, 1983, 
le General Assembly has provided for appeals from the Utilities Commission directly to the Supreme Court. See G.S. 7A-29(b). 



32 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 

(As of June 30, 1983) 



District 

1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Elizabeth City 

2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
James W. Hardison, Wiliamston 

3 Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 

Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City 

James E. Martin, Bethel 

James E. Regan, Oriental 

H. Horton Roundtree, Greenville 

4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville 
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton 
James N. Martin, Clinton 
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Carter T. Lambeth, Wilmington 
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington 
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington 

6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 

7 George Britt, Tarboro 
James E. Ezzell, Rocky Mount 
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 

8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont 
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 

10 George F. Bason, Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
Narley L. Cashwell, Raleigh 
William A. Creech, Raleigh 
George R. Greene, Raleigh 
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh 
Philip O. Redwine, Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 



District 

1 1 Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield 
William Christian, Sanford 
K. Edward Greene, Dunn 
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield 

12 Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford 
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville 
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 
Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville 

13 William E. Wood, Whiteville 
William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 
Roy D. Trest, Shallotte 

14 J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
Karen B. Galloway, Durham 
David Q. LaBarre, Durham 
William G. Pearson, II, Durham 

15A J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 
W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham 
James K. Washburn, Burlington 

15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill 

Patricia S. Hunt, Hillsborough 
Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 

16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton 
B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 

17A Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 

Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville 

17B Foy Clark, Mount Airy 

Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 

18 Robert L. Cecil, High Point 

Robert Bencini, Jr., High Point 
William L. Daisy, Greensboro 
Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro 
William K. Hunter, High Point 
Joseph R. John, Greensboro 
Edmund Lowe, High Point 
John F. Yeattes, Jr., Greensboro 

19A Robert L. Warren, Concord 
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 



"The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



33 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1983) 



District 

19B L.T. Hammond. Jr.. Asheboro 
William M. Neely, Asheboro 

20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro 
Michael E. Beale. Southern Pines 
Ronald W. Burris. Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe 
Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham 

21 Abner Alexander. Winston-Salem 
Joseph J. Gatto. Winston-Salem 
James A. Harrill. Jr., Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 
David R. Tanis. Winston-Salem 

22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
George T. Fuller, Lexington 
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 

23 Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro 
Max F. Ferree, Wilkesboro 
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro 

24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland 
Charles P. Ginn, Boone 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 

25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton 
Edward J. Crotty, Hickory 
Robert A. Mullinax, Newton 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 



District 

26 James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte 
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte 
T. Michael Todd, Charlotte 

27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia 

Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia 
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia 
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 

27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby 
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton 

28 William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 

Robert L. Harrell, Asheville 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard 
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion 

Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville 
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 

30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City 
J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville 
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1983) 

J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington, President 

Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem, Vice President 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville, Secretary-Treasurer 

George M. Britt, Tarboro 
William G. Pearson, II, Durham 
L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 

Additional Executive Committee Members 



hief District Court Judge lor each district is listed first. 



',4 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 
The District Courts 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the 
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 142 
district court judges serving in 34judicial districts during 
1982-83. These judges are elected to four-year terms by 
the voters of their respective districts. 

A total of 61 1 magistrate positions were authorized as 
of June 30, 1983. Of this number, about 100 positions 
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by 
the senior resident superior court judge from nomina- 
tions submitted by the clerk of superior court of their 
county, and they are supervised by the chief district court 
judge of their district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtu- 
ally all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in 
most felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary 
commitments and recommitments to mental hospitals, 
and domestic relations cases. The district courts have 
concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts in gen- 
eral civil cases, but the district courts are the proper 
courts for the trial of civil cases where the amount in 
controversy is $10,000 or less. Upon the plaintiffs 
request, a civil case in which the amount in controversy is 
SI, 000 or less, may be designated a "small claims" case 
and assigned by the chief district court judge to a magis- 
trate for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to try 
worthless check criminal cases when the value of the 
check does not exceed $500. In addition, they may accept 
written appearances, waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty 
in such worthless check cases when the amount of the 
check is $500 or less, the offender has made restitution, 
and the offender has fewer than four previous worthless 
check convictions. Magistrates may accept waviers of 
appearance and pleas of guilty in traffic cases, and in 
boating, hunting and fishing violation cases,* for which a 
uniform schedule of fines has been adopted by the Con- 
ference of Chief District Judges. Magistrates also con- 
duct initial hearings to fix conditions of release for 
arrested defendants, and they are empowered to issue 
arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial 
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub- 
ject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief 
judge exercises administrative supervision and authority 
over the operation of the district courts and magistrates 
in his district. Each chief judge is responsible for: schedul- 
ing sessions of district court and assigningjudges; super- 
vising the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning 



matters to magistrates; making arrangements for court 
reporting and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the 
discharge of clerical functions in the district courts. 

The chief district court judges meet in conference at 
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con- 
ference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and 
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks 
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance 
and guilty pleas. 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1983) 

Robert T. Gash, Brevard, Chairman 

Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville, Vice Chairman 



Expenditures 

Total expenditures for the operation of the district 
courts in 1982-83 amounted to $18,1 19,464. This is an 
increase of 6.4%over 1981-82expenditures of $17,022,936. 
Included in this total are the personnel costs of court 
reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel costs of 
the 142 district court judges and approximately 600 mag- 
istrates. The 1982-83 total is 19.2% of the General Fund 
expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial 
Department, the same percentage share of total Judicial 
Department expenditures that the district courts took for 
the 1981-82 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

During 1982-83 the statewide total of district court 
filings (civil and criminal) increased 24,262 (1.7%) over 
the total number reported for 1981-82. Not including 
juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment 
hearings, the filing total in 1982-83 was 1,445,571. The 
motor vehicle criminal case category registered the most 
significant increase, 51,270 cases (7.6%) more than the 
number of motor vehicle criminal cases in 1981-82. There 
were relatively small decreases in the filing totals for the 
general civil, civil magistrate, and non-motor vehicle 
criminal case categories compared with such totals for 
1981-82. The overall trend in total district court case 
filings has been upward during the past several years even 
though fluctuating increases or decreases may be shown 
in the individual case categories. 

More detailed information on district court civil and 
criminal caseloads and on juvenile case activity is con- 
tained in Part IV of this Report. 



*Chapter 586, 1983 Session Laws; the uniform schedule of fines adopted by Chief District Judges becomes effective July 1, 1984. 



35 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

(As of June 30, 1983) 



District 

1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City 

2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR., Williamston 
3 A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD. Greenville 
3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS. Jacksonville 

5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington 

6 DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro 

7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 

1 1 JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield 

12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

13 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Whiteville 

14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 
15A GEORGE E. HUNT, Graham 

15B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro 

16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton 



District 

17A PHILIP W. ALLEN, Wentworth 

17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson 
18 D. LAMAR DOWDA, Greensboro 
19A JAMES F. ROBERTS, Concord 
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 DONALD K. TISDALE, Winston-Salem 

22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 

24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Marshall 

25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Hickory 

26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte 
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 

27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR., Lincolnton 

28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville 

29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1983) 

Randolph Riley, Raleigh, President 

Ronald C. Brown, Asheville, Vice President 

William H. Andrews, Jacksonville, Vice President for 
Legislative Affairs 

John Smith, Wilmington, Secretary-Treasurer 



u, 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 



The District Attorneys 



The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts 
which, with one exception, correspond to the 34 judicial 
districts. By act of the 1981 Session of the General 
Assembly, the 3rd Judicial District was divided into two 
separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecutorial Districts 
3Aand 3B, effective October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial Dis- 
trict 3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecutorial Dis- 
trict 3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico 
(G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in 
each of the 35 districts for four-year terms. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all criminal 
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his 
district. In addition to his prosecutorial functions, the 
district attorney is responsible for calendaring criminal 
cases for trial. 



Resources 

Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis 
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by 
statute for his district. As of June 30, 1983, a total of 213 
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 35 
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26 
(Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (19 assist- 
ants) and the district attorney of District 1 7B and District 
24 had the smallest staff (two assistants). 

Each district attorney is authorized to employ an 
administrative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial 
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district 
attorney in 18 of the 35 districts is authorized to employ 
an investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation 
of cases prior to trial, and in 10 districts, the district 
attorney is authorized to employ a witness coordinator. 

1982-83 Caseload 

A total of 7 1,594 criminal cases were filed in the super- 
ior courts during 1982-83, consisting of 43,708 felony 
cases and 27,886 misdemeanor appeals from the district 
courts. The total number of filings in the superior courts 
(felonies and misdemeanor appeals) in the previous year 
was 69,607. The increase of 1,987 cases in 1982-83 repre- 
sents a 2.9% increase over the 1981-82 total. 

Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts 
in 1982-83 equalled 70,120. There were 42,966 felony 
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor appeals dis- 
posed of was 27,154. Compared with 1981-82, total crimi- 
nal case dispositions increased by 2,937 cases over the 
67,183 cases disposed of in that fiscal year. The median 
ages of 1982-83 criminal cases at disposition in the super- 
ior courts were 81 days for felony cases and 66 days for 
misdemeanor appeals. In 1981-82, the median age of 
felony cases at disposition was 73 days, and the median 



age at disposition for misdemeanor appeals was 62 days. 

Dispositions by jury trial in the superior courts, for 
felonies and misdemeanors, totalled 3,999 cases, or 5.7% 
of total criminal case dispositions in the superior courts. 
This was a decrease from jury dispositions of 3,793 (5.6% 
of total dispositions) during the 1981-82 year. As is evi- 
dent, a very small proportion of all criminal cases utilize 
the great proportion of superior court time and resources 
required to handle the criminal caseload. 

By contrast, in 1982-83 a majority of criminal case 
dispositions in superior courts (38,012 or 54.2%) were 
processed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a 
trial. This was virtually the same percentage of guilty plea 
dispositions as was reported for 1981-82. 

"Dismissal by district attorney"accounted for a signif- 
icant percentage of all dispositions during 1982-83: a 
total of 19,753 cases, or 28.2% of all dispositions. This 
proportion is comparable to that recorded for prior 
years. Many of the dismissals involved the situation of 
two or more cases pending against the same defendant, 
resulting in a plea bargain agreement where the defend- 
ant pleads guilty to some charges in exchange for a dis- 
missal of others. 

There was an increase in the number of speedy trial 
dismissals in superior courts, from 63 cases in 198 1-82 to 
92 cases in 1982-83. 

The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the 
superior courts was 1 ,474 cases less than the total number 
of cases filed in 1982-83. Consequently, the number of 
pending criminal cases in superior court increased from 
20,204 at the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at 
year's end of 21,678, an increase of 7.3%. 

The median age of pending felony cases dropped from 
83 days in 1981-82 to 80 days during 1982-83. A similar 
decrease was recorded for misdemeanor appeals where 
the median age of cases dropped from 69 days in 1981-82 
to 66 days in 1982-83. 

In the district courts, a total of 1,1 29,032 criminal cases 
were filed during 1982-83. This total consisted of 728,5 1 7 
motor vehicle criminal cases and 400,515 non-motor ve- 
hicle criminal cases. A comparison of total filings in 
1982-83 with total filings (1,095,423) in 1981-82 reveals 
an increase in district court criminal filing activity of 
33,609 cases or 3. 1 %. The increase in motor vehicle crim- 
inal case filings was responsible for all of this increase. 
Filings in the motor vehicle case category rose by 51,270 
cases, from 677,247 cases in 1981-82 to 728,517 cases in 
1982-83, an increase of 7.6%,. 

As motor vehicle criminal case filings rose in 1982-83, 
filings in the non-motor vehicle criminal case category 
fell by 17,661 cases (4.2%) from a total of 418,176 in 
1981-82 to 400,515 in 1982-83. 

Total dispositions during 1982-83 in the motor vehicle 
criminal case category amounted to 7 1 6,040 cases. As in 
prior years, a substantial portion (399,265 cases or 
55.8%) was disposed of by waiver of appearance and 



37 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 



entry of plea of guilty before a clerk or magistrate. This 
substantial number of criminal cases did not, of course, 
require action by the district attorneys' offices and should 
not be regarded as having been a part of the district 
attorneys' "caseload." The remaining 316,775 motor ve- 
hicle cases were disposed of by means other than a 
waiver. This balance was 14,253 cases, or 4.7% more than 
the 302.522 such dispositions in 1981-82. (Due to a 
change in statistical reporting procedures, the clerks of 
court no longer report motor vehicle criminal cases by 
case file number to the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. Only summary total numbers of filings and dis- 
positions are reported weekly. Therefore, it is not possi- 
ble by computer-processing to obtain pending case data 
for the motor vehicle criminal case category.) 

With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo- 
sitions, a total of 397.420 such cases were disposed of in 
1982-83. As with superior court criminal cases, the most 
frequent method of disposition was by entry of guilty 
plea; the next most frequent was dismissal by the district 
attorney. Some 150,732 cases, or 38.0%, of the disposi- 



tions were by guilty pleas. An additional 92,732 cases, or 
23.3%, of the total were disposed of by prosecutor dismis- 
sal. Only two case dispositions were by speedy trial dis- 
missals, compared with eight such dispositions in 1981- 
82. The remaining cases were disposed of by waiver 
(12.8%), trial (10.7%), or by other means (15.2%). 

During 1982-83, the median age at disposition of non- 
motor vehicle criminal cases was 24 days, compared with 
22 days at disposition in 1981-82. 

Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were 
3,095 cases less than total filings for the year. The number 
of non-motor vehicle criminal cases pending at year's end 
was 67,970, compared with a total of 64, 680 at the begin- 
ning of the year, an increase of 4.8% in the number of 
pending cases. The median age for pending non-motor 
vehicle cases dropped from 61 days in 1981-82 to 59 days 
in 1982-83. 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in 
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



38 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

(As of June 30, 1983) 



COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


COUNTY 


Alamance 


Louise B. Wilson 


Johnston 


Alexander 


Seth Chapman 


Jones 


Alleghany 


Joan B. Atwood 


Lee 


Anson 


R. Frank Hightower 


Lenoir 


Ashe 


Virginia W. Johnson 


Lincoln 


Avery 


Billy J. Vance 


Macon 


Beaufort 


Thomas S. Payne, III 


Madison 


Bertie 


Thomas S. Speight 


Martin 


Bladen 


Hilda H. Coleman 


McDowell 


Brunswick 


K. Gregory Bellamy 


Mecklenburg 


Buncombe 


J. Ray Elingburg 


Mitchell 


Burke 


Major A. Joines 


Montgomery 


Cabarrus 


Estus B. White 


Moore 


Caldwell 


Jeanette Turner 


Nash 


Camden 


Catherine W. McCoy 


New Hanover 


Carteret 


Mary Austin 


Northampton 


Caswell 


Janet H. Cobb 


Onslow 


Catawba 


Eunice W. Mauney 


Orange 


Chatham 


Janice Oldham 


Pamlico 


Cherokee 


Rose Mary Crooke 


Pasquotank 


Chowan 


Lena M. Leary 


Pender 


Clay 


R. L. Cherry 


Perquimans 


Cleveland 


Ruth S. Dedmon 


Person 


Columbus 


Lacy R. Thompson 


Pitt 


Craven 


Dorothy Pate 


Polk 


Cumberland 


George T. Griffin 


Randolph 


Currituck 


Wiley B. Elliot 


Richmond 


Dare 


Betty Mann 


Robeson 


Davidson 


Hugh Shepherd 


Rockingham 


Davie 


Delores C. Jordan 


Rowan 


Duplin 


John A. Johnson 


Rutherford 


Durham 


James Leo Carr 


Sampson 


Edgecombe 


Curtis Weaver 


Scotland 


Forsyth 


A.E. Blackburn 


Stanly 


Franklin 


Ralph S. Knott 


Stokes 


Gaston 


Betty B. Jenkins 


Surry 


Gates 


Cheryl Holland 


Swain 


Graham 


O.W. Hooper, Jr. 


Transylvania 


Granville 


Mary Ruth C. Nelms 


Tyrrell 


Greene 


Cleo W. McKeel 


Union 


Guilford 


James Lee Knight 


Vance 


Halifax 


Ellen C. Neathery 


Wake 


Harnett 


Georgia Lee Brown 


Warren 


Haywood 


William G. Henry 


Washington 


Henderson 


Thomas H. Thompson 


Watauga 


Hertford 


Richard T. Vann 


Wayne 


Hoke 


Juanita Edmund 


Wilkes 


Hyde 


Lenora R. Bright 


Wilson 


Iredell 


Carl G. Smith 


Yadkin 


Jackson 


Frank Watson, Jr. 


Yancey 



CLERK OF COURT 

Will R. Crocker 
Ronald H. Metts 
Sion H. Kelly 
M.E. Creech 
Nellie L. Bess 
Lois S. Morris 
James W. Cody 
Mary K. Wynne 
Ruth B. Williams 
Robert M. Blackburn 
Arthur Ray Ledford 
Charles M. Johnson 
Rachel H. Comer 
Rachel M. Joyner 
Louise D. Rehder 
R. Jennings White, Jr. 
Everitte Barbee 
Frank S. Frederick 
Mary Jo Potter 
Frances W. Thompson 
Frances N. Futch 
W.J. Ward 

W. Thomas Humphries 
Sandra Gaskins 
Judy P. Arledge 
John H. Skeen 
Miriam F. Greene 
Dixie I. Barrington 
Frankie C. Williams 
Francis Glover 
Joan M. Jenkins 
Charlie T. McCullen 
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr. 
David R. Fisher 
Pauline Kirkman 
David J. Beal 
Sara Robinson 
Marian M. McMahon 
Jessie L. Spencer 
Nola H. McCollum 
Mary Lou M. Barnett 
J. Russell Nipper 
Richard E. Hunter, Jr. 
Timothy L. Spear 
John T. Bingham 
Shelton Jordan 
Wayne Roope 
William G. Stewart 
Harold J. Long 
Arnold E. Higgins 



39 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 



The Clerks of Superior Court 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year 
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 coun- 
ties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special 
proceedings and is. ex officio, judge of probate, in addi- 
tion to performing record-keeping and administrative 
functions for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court 
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece- 
dents' estates. It also includes such "special proceedings" 
as adoptions, condemnations of private property under 
the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to 
establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceed- 
ings to administer the estates of minors and incompetent 
adults. The right of appeal from the clerks'judgments in 
such cases lies to the superior court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and 
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered 
in the superior and district courts of his county. For 
certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is auth- 
orized to accept defendants' wavier of appearance and 
plea of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a 
schedule established by the Conference of Chief District 
Court Judges. 

Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court 
records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds, 
and the furnishing of information to the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continues to perform cer- 
tain functions related to preparation of civil case calen- 
dars, and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the 
district attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as 
well. Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case 
calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident super- 
ior court judges and chief district court judges. However, 
day-to-day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's respon- 
sibility in all districts except those served by trial court 
administrators. 

Expenditures 

A total of S27.804.593 was expended in 1982-83 for the 
operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In 
addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks 
and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for 
jurors' fees, and witness expenses. 



Total expenditures for clerks' offices in 1982-83 
amounted to 29.5%of the General Fund expenditures for 
the operations of the entire Judicial Department. 

1982-83 Caseload 

During 1 982-83, estate case filings totalled 39, 1 88. This 
was an increase of 3.6% over the 37,838 cases filed in 
1981-82. Estate case dispositions totalled 38,1 10 cases in 
1982-83, or 3.9% more than the previous year's total of 
36,691. Filings in 1982-83 exceeded dispositions by 1,078 
cases. This produced an increase of the same amount in 
the number of estate cases pendingat the end of the year. 

A total of 31,835 special proceedings were filed before 
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1982-83. This is an 
increase of 162 cases (0.5%) over the 31,673 filings in the 
previous fiscal year. During the year, total special pro- 
ceedings dispositions amounted to 32,003 cases, with a 
resulting decrease in the number of cases pending of 
0.8%, from 22,380 on June 30, 1982 to 22,212 as of June 
30, 1983. 

The clerks of superior court are also responsible for 
handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in 
the superior and district courts. The total number of 
superior court case filings during the 1982-83 year was 
85,488, and the total number of district court filings, not 
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, was 1,445,571. 

More detailed information on the estates and special 
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1983) 


George T. Gri 
President 


Tin, Cumberland County, 


Nola H. McCollum, Union County, 
First Vice President 


Major Joines, 
Second Vice 


Burke County 
' President 


David J. Beal, 

Secretary 
John Johnson 


Surry County 
, Duplin County 


Treasurer 





40 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 



Juvenile Services Division 



The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and 
aftercare services to juveniles who are before the District 
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the crimi- 
nal code, including motor vehicle violations; and for 
undisciplined matters, such as running away from home, 
being truant, and being beyond the parents' disciplinary 
control. 

Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin- 
quent or undisciplined behavior by children, to deter- 
mine whether petitions should be filed. During the 1982- 
83 year a total of 18,520 complaints were brought to the 
attention of intake counselors. Of this number, 1 1,137 
(60%) were approved for filing, and 7,383 (40%) were not 
approved for filing. 

Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of chil- 
dren in their own communities. Probation is authorized 
by judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juve- 
niles after their release from a training school. ( Protective 
supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision 
within the community; and this service is combined with 
probation and aftercare.) 

In 1982-83 a total of 10,591 juveniles were supervised in 
the probation and aftercare program. 



Expenditures 

The Juvenile Services Division is primarily State- 
funded. The expenditures for fiscal year 1982-83 totaled 
$7,464,930, including $46,182 from a federal grant. This 
was an increase of 6% over the 198 1-82 expenditures. The 
1982-83 expenditures amounted to 7.9% of all General 
Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial 
Department, the same percentage share of total Judicial 
Department expenditures for the Division as in the pre- 
vious fiscal year. 



Administration 

The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is 
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of 
the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each 
judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Ser- 
vices Division, with the approval of the Chief District 
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the 
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general supervi- 
sion, each chief court counselor exercises administrative 
supervision over the operation of the court counseling 
services in the respective districts. 



Juvenile Services Division Staff 
(As of June 30, 1983) 

Thomas A. Danek, Administrator 

Edward F. Taylor, Assistant Administrator 

John T. Wilson, Program Supervisor 

Sharon P. Worthington, Education Coordinator 



41 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 



Juvenile Services Division 
(As of June 30, 1983) 



Judicial 




District 


C hief Court Counselors 


1 


Robert Hendrix 


: 


Charles Hough 


3 


Eve C. Rogers 


4 


Ida Rav Miles 


5 


William T. Childs 


6 


John R. Brady 


7 


Nancy C. Patteson 


8 


Harold Hinnant 


9 


Tommy Lewis 


10 


Steven J. Williams 


1 ! 


Henry C. Cox 


12 


Phil T. Utley 


n 


Jimmy Godwin 


14 


Fred Elkins 


15A 


Harry Derr 


15B 


Harold Rogerson 



Judicial 




District 


Chief Court Counselors 


16 


Robert Hughes 


17Aand 17B 


Martha Lauten 


18 


J. Manley Dodson 


19Aand 19B 


James Queen 


20 


Jimmy Craig 


21 


James J. Weakland 


22 


Carl T. Duncan 


23 


Rex Yates 


24 


Lynn Hughes 


25 


Lee Cox 


26 


James Yancey 


27A 


Yvonne Hall 


27B 


Gloria Newman 


28 


Louis Parrish 


29 


Kenneth Lanning 


30 


Betty G. Alley 



THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION 

(Officers for 1982-83) 

Executive Committee Members 

J. Manley Dodson, President 

John A. Auten, Jr., President-elect 

Pat Jackson, Secretary 

Bill Fishel, Treasurer 

Harold Rogerson, Parliamentarian 

Board Members 



1982-83 

Betty Gene Alley 
Edward Taylor 
Jo Lammonds 



1982-84 

Jimmy Moore 
Eleanor P. Causey 
Pam Honeycutt 



1982-85 

John Brady 
Mark Vinson 
Horace Walser 



42 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 
Public Defenders 



During 1982-83, there were six public defender offices 
in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3, 12, 18, 26, 
27A, and 28. (By statute, a public defender office was 
established in District 15B, for Orange and Chatham 
Counties, in June, 1983, but this office was not opera- 
tional until July, 1983.) The public defender for District 
28 is appointed by the senior resident superior court 
judge from recommendations submitted by the district 
bar; for other districts, the appointment is by the Gover- 
nor from recommendations of the respective district bars. 
Their terms are four years. Each public defender is by 
statute provided a minimum of one full-time assistant 
public defender and additional full-time or part-time 
assistants as may be authorized by the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 

Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel 

A person is determined to be indigent if he is found 
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He is 
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any pro- 
ceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief from) 
confinement; a fine of $500 or more; or extradition to 
another State; a proceeding alleging mental illness or 
incapacity which may result in hospitalization, steriliza- 
tion, or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile 
proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to 
superior court for a felony trial, or termination of paren- 
tal rights. 

Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indi- 
gents in the districts with public defenders are handled by 
the public defender's office. However, the court may in 
certain circumstances — such as existence of a potential 
conflict of interest — assign private counsel to represent 
an indigent defendant. In the other 28 districts, the 
assigned private counsel system was the only one used. 

Expenditures 

A total of $2,219,766 was expended for the operation 
of the six public defenders' offices during 1982-83. This 
was an increase of $ 104,559 (4.9%) over the 198 1 -82 total 
of $2,1 15,207. 



1982-83 Caseload 

The six public defender offices represented a total of 
16,403 defendents during 1982-83. This was an increase 
of 1,206 defendants, or 7.9%, over the 15,197 defendants 
represented during 1981-82. 

Additional information concerning the operation of 
these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report. 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 
(As of June 30, 1983)* 

District 3 

Donald C. Hicks, III, Greenville 

District 12 

Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District 18 

Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 

Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte 

District 27A 
Curtis O. Harris, Gastonia 

District 28 

J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 

*Note: John Kirk Osborn took office as Public Defender 
for District 15B on July 1, 1983. 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1983) 

Adam Stein, President 

Donald Hicks, III, Vice President 

Steve Ward, Secretary- Treasurer 



43 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 

The Office of the Appellate Defender 

(Staff as of June 30, 1983) 



Adam Stein, Appellate Defender 
Assistant Appellate Defenders 



Nora Elizabeth B. Henry 
Malcolm R. Hunter, Jr. 
Lorinzo L. Jovner 



Ann B. Petersen 
Marc D. Towler 



The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to that 
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one- 
year federal grant.) In accord with the assignments made 
by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the Appel- 
late Defender and his staff to provide criminal defense 
appellate services to indigent persons who are appealing 
their convictions to either the Supreme Court or the 
Court of Appeals. 

The Appellate Defender is appointed by the Governor 
for a term of four years, but in carrying out his duties he is 
under the general supervision of the Chief Justice. The 
Chief Justice may. consistent with the resources available 
to the Appellate Defender and to insure quality criminal 
defense services, authorize certain appeals to be assigned 
to a local public defender office or to private assigned 
counsel instead of to the Appellate Defender. 



1982-83 Caseload 

As of July 1, 1982, the Appellate Defender had 43 cases 
pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court. During 
the 1982-83 year, a total of 45 additional appeals to the 
Supreme Court were assigned to the Appellate Defend- 
er's Office, and during that year a total of 46 cases in the 
Supreme Court were disposed of. This left 42 cases pend- 
ing as of June 30, 1983. During the 1982-83 year, the 
Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of 43 briefs 
and 70 petitions in the Supreme Court. 

As of July 1, 1982, the Appellate Defender had 139 
cases pending in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. 
During the 1982-83 year, a total of 121 additional appeals 
to the Court of Appeals were assigned to the Appellate 
Defender's Office, and during that year, a total of 160 
cases in the Court of Appeals were disposed of. This left 
100 cases pending as of June 30, 1983. During the 1982-83 
year, the Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of 
128 briefs and 16 petitions in the Court of Appeals. 



44 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 

(Members as of June 30, 1983) 



Appointed by the Governor 

H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Wade Barber, Jr., Pittsboro 
District Attorney 

Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Raleigh 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

David M. Britt, Raleigh 

Retired Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court 

George Kornegay, Mount Olive 

Louise B. Wilson, Graham 
Clerk of Court 

Vacancy 

Appointed by President of the Senate 
(Lieutenant Governor) 

Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro 

Member, N.C. Senate 

Fielding Clark, II, Hickory 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 
Superior Court Judge 

E. Lawrence Davis, Winston-Salem 

Rebecca B. Hundley, Thomasville 

R.C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh 

Vacancy 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives 

Bobby R. Etheridge, Angier 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Harold L. Kennedy, Jr., Winston-Salem 

Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg 
Clerk of Court 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
District Court Judge 

Marvin D. Musselwhite, Jr., Raleigh 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Vacancy 

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) 

Robert M. Clay, Raleigh 

N.C. Bar Association Representative 

William K. Davis, Raleigh 
N.C. State Bar Representative 

Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh 
Administrative Officer of the Courts 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continu- 
ing studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, 
procedures and personnel of the Judicial Department 
and of the General Court of Justice and to make recom- 
mendations to the General Assembly for such changes 
therein as will facilitate the administration of justice". 
Initially, the Commission was comprised of 15 voting 
members, with five each appointed by the Governor, the 
President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the 
Speaker of the House. The Commission also had three ex 
officio members as shown above. 

The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes per- 
taining to the Courts Commission, to increase the 



number of voting members from 15 to 23, with the Gov- 
ernor to appoint seven voting members, the President of 
the Senate to appoint eight voting members, and the 
Speaker of the House to appoint eight voting members. 
The non-voting ex officio members remained the same: a 
representative of the North Carolina Bar Association, a 
representative of the North Carolina State Bar, and the 
Administrative Officer of the Courts. 

The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further 
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership 
of the Commission. Effective July 1, 1983, the Commis- 
sion is to consist of 24 voting members, six to be 
appointed by the Governor; six to be appointed by the 
Speaker of the House; six to be appointed by the Presi- 



45 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 
The North Carolina Courts Commission 



dent of the Senate: and six to be appointed by the Chief 
Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Gov- 
ernor continues to appoint the Chairman of the Commis- 
sion, from among its legislative members. The non- 
voting ex officio membership of three persons remains 
the same. 

Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be a 
Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of the 
Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior court, 
and two are to be judges of district court. 

Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a 
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of 
superior court, and three are to be members or former 
members of the General Assembly and at least one of 
these shall not be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to 
be members or formers members of the General Assem- 
bly, and at least one of these three is not to be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be 
members or former members of the General Assembly, 
and at least one is to be a magistrate. 

During the 1982-83 year the Courts Commission had a 
total of eleven meetings. The Commission submitted its 
main report to the General Assembly in February, 1983, 
and a supplementary report on the counsel-for-indigents 
program in April, 1983. 

The following Commission proposals were approved 
at the 1983 General Assembly: 

• Statutory amendments providing for direct appeal 
to the N.C. Supreme Court of general rate decisions 
of the Utilities Commission, in lieu of such appeals 
going first to the N.C. Court of Appeals (Chapter 
526, 1983 Session Laws). 

• Statutory amendments relating to service of process 
in summary ejectment and small claims cases (Chap- 
ter 332, 1983 Session Laws). 

• Statutory amendments to provide that certain dis- 
covery documents are not to be filed with the clerk 
unless and until needed for trial (Chapter 201, 1983 
Session Laws). 

• Statutory amendments to establish a District Attor- 
ney Conference and provide for staff (Chapter 761, 
1983 Session Laws). 

• Proposed constitutional amendment to provide that 
Attorney General and District Attorneys must be 
duly licensed to practice law in North Carolina, 
approved by General Assembly to be on ballot in 
November, 1984 (Chapter 298, 1983 Session Laws). 



• Statutory amendments to provide for standard con- 
ditions of probation (Chapter 561, 1983 Session 
Laws). 

• Statutory amendments providing for increases in 
court costs and fees (Chapter 713, 1983 Session 
Laws). 

• Statutory amendments to provide increase in pay for 
jurors (Chapter 88, 1983 Session Laws). 

The following recommendations of the North Carolina 
Courts Commission were introduced in the General 
Assembly during the 1983 Session and remain pending in 
committee. These are eligible for consideration at the 
"short " session in June, 1984: 

• Statutory amendments to provide for temporary 
recall of a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, to 
serve on either the Supreme Court or the Court of 
Appeals; and to authorize the Chief Justice to recall 
retired justices or judges to expedite the work of the 
appellate courts (H 310). 

• Statutory amendments to authorize the presiding 
judge in a civil action or special proceeding to award 
reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party 
upon finding that there was a complete absence of a 
justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the 
losing party (H 474). 

• Statutory amendments to provide that certain minor 
traffic offenses would be civil infractions rather than 
criminal offenses (H 491). 

• Statutory amendments to provide credit for law 
enforcement and court-related experience, for pur- 
poses of setting magistrates' salary (H 473). 

• Statutory amendments to provide that the Adminis- 
trative Office of the Courts, instead of State Bar 
Council, have authority and responsibility for adopt- 
ing regulations for determining indigency and assign- 
ing state-paid counsel (H 1285). 

One recommendation of the Commission (H 447), to 
authorize the presiding judge to have jury selection pro- 
ceedings held in the county of residence of the jurors 
instead of in the county where the case is to be tried, 
where it is necessary to select jurors from another county, 
received an unfavorable report by the House Committee. 



46 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 

The Judicial Standards Commission 
(Members as of June 30, 1983) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold, 
Fuquay-Varina, Chairman 

Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, 
Greensboro 

District Court Judge L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 



Appointed by the Governor 

Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro, Secretary 
Veatrice C. Davis, Fayetteville 



Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville, Vice Chairman 
E. K. Powe, Durham 



Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 



July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general elec- 
tion in November 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su- 
preme Court may censure or remove any judge for wilful 
misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to per- 
form his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a 
crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial 
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recommendation 
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any 
judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with 
the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to 
become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal 
involves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommen- 
dation and supporting record is filed with the Court of 
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author- 
ity for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding 
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of 
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the 
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair- 
man of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or remov- 
al, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure 
known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism 
administratively developed for dealing with inquiries 
where the conduct involved does not warrant censure or 
removal, but where some action is justified. Since the 
establishment of the Judicial Standards Commission in 
1973, reprimands have been issued in eleven instances 
covering 13 inquiries. 



During the 1 July 1982 - 30 June 1983 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on the following 
dates: 10 September 1982, 22 September 1982, 1 October 
1982, 5 November 1982, 6 January 1983, 16 February 
1983,4 March 1983, 1 April 1983, and 13 May 1983. In 
addition, the Commission convened on 4 January 1983 
and 21 June 1983 for hearings in two inquiries. 

A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an 
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge. "Twenty-two such inquir- 
ies were pending as of 1 July 1982, and 82 inquiries were 
filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total 
workload of 104 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 75 
inquiries, and 29 inquiries remained pending at the end of 
the fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission regarding the 
75 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as 
follows: 

(1) sixty-five inquiries were determined to involve 
matters for appeal or other legal remedy, evident- 
iary rulings, length of sentences, or other matters 
not within the Commission's jurisdiction rather 
than questions of judicial misconduct; 

(2) seven inquiries were determined to involve allega- 
tions of conduct which did not rise to such a level as 
would warrant investigation by the Commission; 

(3) two inquiries were determined to warrant no 
further action following completion of preliminary 
investigations; and 

(4) one inquiry was determined to warrant a recom- 
mendation of removal following a hearing in the 
matter. 



47 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1982-83 

The recommendation of removal filed by the Commis- (1) eleven inquiries were awaiting initial review by the 

sion on 7 February 1983 in Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Commission; and 

No. "4 (J. Wilton Hunt. Sr., Respondent), was adopted (2) eighteen inquiries covered in five preliminary inves- 

by the Supreme Court on 3 May 1983. In re Hunt, 308 tigative files wereawaiting completion of the inves- 

N.C. 328 (1983). tigation or were subject to other action by the 

Of the 29 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal year: Commission. 



48 



PART III 
COURT RESOURCES 

• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of 
the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid 
from State funds. It is customary legislative practice for 
the General Assembly to include appropriations for the 
operating expenses of all three branches of State govern- 
ment in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending 
on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The budget for 
the second year of the biennium is generally modified 
during the even-year legislative session. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided 
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments 
are required to provide from county funds for adequate 
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100 
counties. 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for 
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of 
State government, including the Judicial Department, 
totalled $3,488,908,246 for the 1982-83 fiscal year. 
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria- 
tions from the General Fund for capital improvements 
and debt servicing are not included in this total.) 

The appropriation from the General Fund for the 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1982- 
83 was $93,927,824. As illustrated in the chart below, this 
General Fund appropriation for the Judicial Department 
comprised 2. 7% of the General Fund appropriations for 
the operating expenses of all State agencies and depart- 
ments. (The above appropriation amounts include 
$2,785,856 for accrued attorney fees for indigent defend- 
ants paid in July 1983.) 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
APPROPRIATION 

$93,927,824 



2.7% 



51 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriations from the State's general fund for oper- 
ating expenses o\ the Judicial Department over the past 
five fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the 
graph at the top of the following page. For comparative 
purposes, appropriations from the general fund for oper- 



ating expenses of all State agencies and departments 
(including the Judicial Department) for the last five fiscal 
years are also shown in the table below and in the second 
graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



All State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 

1978-1979 

19"9-1980 
1980-1981 
1981-1982 
1982-1983 

AVERAGE ANNUAL 
INCREASE, 1978-1983 



Appropriation 

63,685,178 
71,616,057 
82,929,174 
89,631,765 
93,927,824 



% Increase over 
previous year 

13.08% 

12.45% 
15.80% 

8.08% 

4.79% 

10.84% 



Appropriation 

2,452,011,095 
2,761,002,481 
3,140,949,832 
3,339,761,674 
3,488,908,246 



% Increase over 
previous year 

11.79% 
12.60% 
13.76% 

6.33% 
4.47% 

9.79% 



During the past decade, including the five-year period 
covered by the above table, inflation has been a signifi- 
cant factor in the national economy. For example, during 
1979-80 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the 
average person spent for goods and services more than 
twice the amount required for the same goods and ser- 
vices in 1967. 

The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart- 
ment appropriations during the last five years was for the 



1980-8 1 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in 
large measure to a 10% pay increase for Judicial Branch 
personnel, with the same pay increase provided for per- 
sonnel of all State government agencies. 

Fiscal year 1982-83 shows the smallest percentage 
increase in Judicial Department appropriations during 
the five-year period. This decline in the percentage of 
increase is consistent with the decline in the percentage of 
increase for all State government agejicies. 



52 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



; 100,000,000 

90,000,000 
80,000,000 
70,000,000 
60,000,000 
50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000,000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 




General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of the Judicial Department, 1978-79 — 1982-83 



$93,927,824 















$89631 765 






$« 


32,929,1 


74 








$' 


n,6i6,o: 


57 








$< 


S3.685.1 


78 

























































































1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



$3,500. 

3,250. 

3,000. 

2,750. 

2,500. 

2,250. 

2,000. 

1,750. 

1,500, 

1,250. 

1,000. 
750 : 
500, 
250. 



000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 
000,000 




General Fund Appropriations for Operational Expenses 
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1978-79 — 1982-83 

$3,488,908,246 













$3,339,761, 


674 






$3, 


140,949, 


6S2 








$2,' 


761,002,* 


181 








$? 45? 01 1 0Q5 







































































































































1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



53 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 
July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



General Fund expenditures, rounded to the nearest 
dollar, for operating expenses of the Judicial Department 
during the 1982-83 fiscal year totalled $94,207,213. 
divided among the major budget classifications as shown 



below. Expenditures for LEAA-funded projects in the 
Judicial Department totalled $216,871, for a grand total 
of $94,424,084 in Judicial Department expenditures. 



Supreme Court 

Court of Appeals 

Superior Courts 

District Courts 

Clerks of Superior Court 

Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 

Legal Representation for Indigents 

Assigned private counsel $9,147,427 

Public defenders $2,219,766 

Special counsel at mental hospitals $150,396 

Support services (expert witness fees, professional examinations, transcripts) $441,232 

Appellate Defender Services $325,297 
District Attorney Offices 
Administrative Office of the Courts 

General Administration $1,773,126 

Information Services $1,314,097 

Warehouse & Printing $253,296 
Judicial Standards Commission 

Total General Fund Expenditures 
LEAA-Funded Projects 

TOTAL 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


1,464,289 


1.5 


2,025,252 


2.2 


10,256,492 


10.9 


18,119,464 


19.2 


27,804,593 


29.5 


7,464,930 


7.9 


12,284,119 


13.0 



11,362,203 
3,340,519 



85,354 

$94,207,213 
216,871 

$94,424,084 



12.1 
3.6 



I 
100.0 



54 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Expenditures, July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



DISTRICT COURTS 

19.2% 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
OF THE COURTS 

3.6% 

SUPERIOR COURTS 

10.9% 



CLERKS 
OF 

SUPERIOR 
COURT 

29.5% 




DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

12.1% 



COURT OF APPEALS 2.2% 
SUPREME COURT 1.5% 

LEGAL REPRESENTATION 
FOR INDIGENTS 13.0% 

JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 0.1% 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 7.9% 



As the above chart illustrates, the bulk of Judicial 
Department expenditures goes for operation of the 
State's trial courts. Operation of the superior courts took 
10.9% of total expenditures. Operation of the district 
courts (including magistrates, judges and court reporters) 
took 19.2% of the total. An additional 29.5% went to 
operate the offices for the 100 clerks of superior court, to 



pay jurors' and witnesses' fees and to provide office 
equipment and supplies and postage and telephone 
service. 

The total General Fund expenditures of $94,207,215 
for 1982-83 represents a 6.4% increase over expenditures 
of $88,53 1 ,892 in 1 98 1 -82, an increase in keeping with the 
trend in recent years, as illustrated in the chart below. 



; 100,000.000 
90,000,000 
80,000,000 
70,000,000 
60,000,000 
50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000,000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 




General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
Fiscal Years 1978-79 — 1982-83 



$94,20/,215 

sxx <m xQi wts&am 


$$ 


U ,278,5! 


50 








$7 


1,077,5* 


>1 








$6 


2,245,9: 


.3 































































































1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



19X2-83 



55 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Department Receipts 
July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1982-83 
fiscal year totalled $54.998,8 1 5.72. The several sources of 
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 
previous years, the major source of receipts is the assess- 
ment of "court costs" in superior and district courts, paid 
b\ litigants in accordance with the schedule of costs and 
fees set out in G.S. 7 A-304 et seq.\ these payments consti- 



tuted 59.76% of the total receipts during 1982-83. Fines 
and forfeitures made up 37.75% of the total. Receipts in 
the remaining categories — Supreme Court and Court of 
Appeals filing fees, sales of Supreme Court and Court of 
Appeals Reports and payments on indigent representa- 
tion judgements — made up less than three percent of the 
total. 



Source of Recepits 

Supreme Court Fees 
Court of Appeals Fees 
Superior and District 

Court Costs 
Fines and Forfeitures 
Sales of Appellate 

Division Reports 
Payments on Indigent 

Representation 

Judgements 
Total 



Amount 

$ 18,147.70 
32,164.89 

32,865,678.99 
20,762,988.44 

202,091.48 



1,117,744.22 
$54,998,815.72 



%of 
Total 

.03 

.06 

59.76 

37.75 

.37 



2.03 
100.00 



This total of $54,998,815.72 is an increase of 2.81% 
over total 1 98 1 -82 receipts of $53,493,059.90. The graph 



below illustrates increases in recent years in total Judicial 
Department receipts. 



S60,000,000 

50.000.000 
40.000.000 
30.000.000 
20,000 000 

10.00' 





Judicial Department Receipts, 1978-79 — 1982-83 

$51 913 089 25 $53,493,059.90 $5 4,998,815 .72 
S48,060,916 _ $49,311,080.74 




978-79 




981-82 



1982-83 



'(> 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 
(July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983) 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penalties 
and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal cases 
are distributed to the respective counties in which the 
cases are tried. These funds must be used by the counties 
for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and criminal 
cases, comprised of a variety of fees, is set by statute for 
cases filed in the superior and district courts. Statutes 
prescribe the distribution of these fees and provide that 
certain fees shall be devoted to specific uses. For exam- 
ple, a facilties fee is included in court costs when costs are 
assessed, and this fee is paid over to the respective county 
or municipality which provided the facility used in the 
case. These fees must be utilized by the counties and 
municipalities to provide and maintain courtrooms and 
related judicial facilities. 

Officer fees (for arrest or service of process) are 
included, where applicable, in the costs of each case filed 
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed these 
services in a case, the fee is paid over to the respective 
municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are paid to the 
respective counties in which the cases are filed. 



A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; and these fees are distributed to the respective 
county or municipality whose facilties were used. Most 
jail facilties in the State are provided by the counties. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs when 
costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required by 
statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to the 
State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforcement 
Officers Benefit and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court 
costs collected by the Judicial Department are paid into 
the State's General Fund. 

When private counsel or a public defender is assigned 
to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case the 
trial judge sets the money value for the services rendered. 
If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien is entered 
against him for such amount. Collections on these 
judgements are paid into the State's General Fund, as are 
appellate court fees and proceeds from the sales of appel- 
late division reports. 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Sales of Appellate Division Reports 

Payments on Indigent Representation Judgments 

Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 

Retirement Fund Fees 
Other Superior and District Court Fees 

Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 
Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Counties 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 

GRAND TOTAL 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


$ 18,147.70 


.03 


32,164.89 


.06 


202,091.48 


.37 


1,117,744.22 


2.03 


2,252,543.88 


4.10 


19,772,414.45 


35.95 


23,395,106.62 


42.54 


20,762,988.44 


37.75 


5,815,712.59 


10.57 


2,807,040.61 


5.10 


511,155.83 


.93 


29,896,897.47 


54.35 


301,729.00 


.55 


1,395,095.63 


2.54 


9,987.00 


.02 


1,706,811.63 


3.11 


$54,998,815.72 


100.00 



57 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Alamance 


S 1U6.5S0.00 S 


55,076.70 $ 


12.234.25 $ 


4IS. 664.28 


$ -0- 


$ 23,413.00 


$ -0- $ 


615,968.23 


Alexander 


16.931.00 


9,697.00 


2,873.00 


89,964.00 


-0- 


296.00 


-0- 


119,761.00 


Alleghany 


1471.00 


2.978.00 


1.736.00 


28,226.06 


-0- 


582.00 


-0- 


35,993.06 


Anson 


28.524.00 


16.135.00 


1.815.00 


I 13.173.00 


-0- 


1.312.00 


-0- 


160,959.00 


Ashe 


16.463.00 


13.873.00 


1,657.00 


62,972.00 


1) 


348.00 


()- 


95,313.00 


Avery 


11.324.00 


S.I 28.00 


614.00 


48,556.00 


-0- 


164.00 


-0- 


68,786.00 


Beaufort 


44.S63.00 


35.166.00 


5,107.00 


146,473.50 


•0- 


6,490.00 


-0- 


238,099.50 


Bertie 


22.7S1.00 


19,290.96 


1,597.00 


69,161.22 


-0- 


982.00 


-0- 


113,812.18 


Bladen 


35.331.00 


30,432.00 


1,961.00 


143,225.92 


1,953.00 


516.00 


-0- 


213,418.92 


Brunswick 


29.S5S.00 


17,414.00 


2,233.74 


130,102.38 


2,020.00 


1,703.00 


-0- 


183,331.12 


Buncombe 


179.931.43 


101,921.00 


6,362.50 


664,364.93 


-0- 


42,087.00 


-0- 


994,666.86 


Burke 


75.539.00 


37,074.00 


1,810.00 


245,523.41 


-0- 


8,972.00 


-0- 


368,918.41 


Cabarrus 


93.6 IS. 00 


69,129.50 


8,697.00 


306,990.24 


0- 


9,368.00 


-0- 


487,802.74 


Caldwell 


64.596.00 


21,080.00 


3.573.00 


169,976.75 


-0- 


9,350.00 


-0- 


268,575.75 


Camden 


4.3S5.00 


3,427.00 


821.00 


24,870.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


33,503.00 


Carteret 


49.43S.00 


26.560.00 


1,455.00 


211,970.92 


-0- 


9,686.00 


-0- 


299,109.92 


Caswell 


15.773.75 


14,557.00 


1,190.00 


59,078.70 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


90,599.45 


Catawba 


47.231.50 


32,102.00 


6,496.00 


333,617.69 


61,309.00 


29,395.00 


2,180.00 


512,331.19 


Chatham 


22.160.00 


21,067.00 


1,345.00 


82,283.72 


6,584.00 


1,276.00 


275.00 


134,990.72 


Cherokee 


12.734.00 


8,992.00 


3.613.00 


59,677.00 


-0- 


1,908.00 


155.00 


87,079.00 


Chowan 


14.443.00 


9,846.00 


1,1 12.00 


37,868.00 


-0- 


2,648.00 


-0- 


65,917.00 


Clay 


3.479.00 


2,334.00 


828.00 


20,384.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


27,025.00 


Cleveland 


65.713.09 


26,317.50 


8,749.00 


184,215.44 


-0- 


8,625.72 


-0- 


293,620.75 


Columbus 


53.16S.00 


47.457.00 


6,666.00 


172,797.58 


3,301.00 


5,311.00 


1 30.00 


288,830.58 


Cra\en 


S4.S49.92 


30,886.00 


5,109.00 


346,155.65 


-0- 


18,655.00 


-0- 


485,655.57 


Cumberland 


253,759.50 


85,170.13 


26,253.47 


1,044,590.62 


-0- 


59,223.00 


-0- 


1,468,996.72 


( urntuck 


14.430.00 


12,385.65 


1,535.00 


73,548.60 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


101,899.25 


Dare 


33.S26.00 


18,776.02 


4,731.00 


225,821.31 


-0- 


7,036.00 


-0- 


290,190.33 


Davidson 


S4.664.50 


64,045.73 


7,502.60 


305,156.85 


12,620.00 


8,015.00 


-0- 


482,004.68 


Da\ ie 


22.014.60 


15,825.00 


1,202.00 


64,725.85 


-0- 


572.00 


-0- 


104,339.45 


Duplin 


40.404.00 


21,210.00 


3,930.00 


168,866.00 


-0- 


1,140.00 


525.00 


236,075.00 


Durham 


189.7S0.00 


60.274.00 


3,656.00 


325,976.50 


-0- 


56,675.00 


-0- 


636,361.50 


Edgecombe 


43.S70.50 


51,934.00 


10,402.50 


150,800.88 


27,570.00 


13,028.00 


465.00 


298,070.88 




2S9.333.50 


40,512.00 


19,731.83 


770,274.07 


4,195.00 


119,141.00 


-0- 


1,243,187.40 


Franklin 


22.960.00 


12,394.00 


2,726.00 


82,071.75 


-0- 


468.00 


-0- 


120,619.75 




135,306.00 


88,015.55 


12,068.00 


487,969.85 


-0- 


16,376.00 


-0- 


739,735.40 




7.777.00 


5,866.00 


415.00 


31,763.66 





40.00 


■0- 


45,861.66 


Graham 


4.412.00 


3.030.00 


1,390.00 


15,365.00 





36.00 


-0- 


24,233.00 


Granville 


34.0S9.00 


15,788.00 


3,990.00 


121,093.77 


-0- 


5,599.00 


299.00 


180,858.77 


i 


13.272.00 


9,802.00 


1,362.00 


56,594.84 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


81,030.84 




3S9.433.75 


67,919.82 


13,712.00 


867,391.55 


-0- 


148,116.00 


-0- 


1,486,573.12 


Hah'. 


60,156.00 


45,028.74 


12,591.55 


277,257.82 


7,727.00 


15,918.00 


329.00 


419,008.11 


Harnett 


42.424.00 


27,360.00 


6,638.00 


174,731.49 


6,853.00 


4,258.00 


778.00 


263,042.49 


Ha;, wood 


41,707.00 


29,746.00 


98 7.00 


188,044.15 


1,014.00 


2,603.00 


-0- 


264,101.15 


Henderson 


51.1 16.1 1 


27,251.00 


7,397.75 


229,489.90 


-0- 


5,406.00 


-0- 


320,660.76 


Hertford 


30,036.00 


19,257.42 


3,571.00 


91,061.14 


-0- 


2,276.00 


-0- 


146,201.56 


H - 


21,283.00 


12,251.74 


3,138.00 


75,100.37 


(i 


1,698.00 


-0- 


113,471.1 1 




6.582.00 


5.296.00 


230.00 


29,515.75 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


41,623.75 




63.989.00 


32,363.40 


2,502.66 


272,398.42 


1 1,953.00 


10,467.00 


41 1.00 


394,084.48 



1 jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
ie arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
;s are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by 
ourts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



ss 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Jackson 


$ 18,791.00 


$ 13,953.21 


S 1,320.00 


$ 79,390.00 


$ -0- 


$ -0- 


$ -0- 


$ 113,454.21 


Johnston 


64,088.00 


45,884.00 


10,786.95 


294,969.16 


13,004.00 


8,182.00 


365.00 


437,279.11 


Jones 


9,053.00 


5,732.00 


770.00 


27,784.00 


-0- 


480.00 


-0- 


43,819.00 


Lee 


44,724.00 


22,922.68 


9,319.00 


126,909.50 


-0- 


9,374.85 


-0- 


213,250.03 


Lenoir 


69,242.80 


26,498.01 


5,308.00 


209,718.11 


776.00 


11,101.00 


-0- 


322,643.92 


Lincoln 


29,169.96 


20,093.00 


715.00 


69,580.98 


-0- 


1,806.00 


-0- 


121,364.94 


Macon 


18,119.00 


13,831.69 


1,402.00 


73,112.00 


-0- 


460.00 


-0- 


106,924.69 


Madison 


7,073.00 


5,835.00 


125.00 


29,119.00 


-0- 


28.00 


-0- 


42,180.00 


Martin 


26,523.00 


20,182.00 


670.00 


81,397.46 


-0- 


1,648.00 


-0- 


130,420.46 


McDowell 


28,001.00 


17,880.00 


1,303.00 


113,754.09 


-0- 


1,452.00 


-0- 


162,390.09 


Mecklenburg 


450,313.50 


51,895.00 


206.00 


1,218,608.03 


-0- 


264,591.05 


-0- 


1,985,613.58 


Mitchell 


6,441.00 


4,806.00 


750.00 


21,475.86 


-0- 


512.00 


-0- 


33,984.86 


Montgomery 


34,929.00 


30,253.00 


3,147.00 


86,197.00 


-0- 


900.00 


-0- 


155,426.00 


Moore 


54,054.00 


37,965.00 


2,392.00 


199,208.37 


4,908.00 


8,477.00 


335.00 


307,339.37 


Nash 


49,429.00 


53,936.41 


10,799.75 


238,788.09 


34,998.00 


12,768.00 


991.00 


401,710.25 


New Hanover 


132,158.60 


37,124.37 


13,154.55 


620,866.61 


-0- 


29,615.00 


155.00 


833,074.13 


Northampton 


26,019.00 


21,144.35 


2,057.00 


107,269.28 


-0- 


1,454.00 


-0- 


157,943.63 


Onslow 


99,617.75 


68,893.45 


24,967.95 


458,369.92 


-0- 


13,809.50 


-0- 


665,658.57 


Orange 


43,349.50 


30,785.75 


2,470.00 


211,327.45 


23,830.00 


17,500.00 


610.00 


329,872.70 


Pamlico 


7,016.00 


5,176.00 


795.00 


22,341.35 


-0- 


44.00 


-0- 


35,372.35 


Pasquotank 


27,249.00 


12,626.00 


2,011.74 


268,835.38 


-0- 


7,574.00 


-0- 


318,296.12 


Pender 


21,814.50 


14,664.00 


2,519.50 


102,430.00 


-0- 


806.00 


-0- 


142,234.00 


Perquimans 


9,998.00 


7,002.00 


295.00 


27,529.00 


-0- 


1,096.00 


-0- 


45,920.00 


Person 


22,516.99 


16,897.00 


2,016.00 


76,480.51 


-0- 


1,850.00 


-0- 


119,760.50 


Pitt 


78,597.00 


27,569.00 


5,384.41 


285,466.74 


6,442.00 


19,515.00 


593.00 


423,567.15 


Polk 


10,400.00 


8,256.00 


1,832.00 


68,113.00 


-0- 


418.00 


-0- 


89,019.00 


Randolph 


63,912.00 


54,733.73 


2,945.00 


200,999.56 


1,040.00 


8,110.00 


-(»- 


331,740.29 


Richmond 


36,784.00 


21,776.00 


3,729.00 


109,877.28 


-0- 


3,031.00 


-0- 


175,197.28 


Robeson 


92,319.00 


59,967.40 


12,299.00 


472,519.40 


32,776.00 


21,806.00 


896.00 


692,582.80 


Rockingham 


63,388.19 


39,136.50 


8,395.00 


312,186.84 


26,686.00 


25,989.00 


25.00 


475,806.53 


Rowan 


88,132.00 


54,922.28 


12,439.58 


297,869.85 


-0- 


22,030.00 


-0- 


475,393.71 


Rutherford 


41,701.79 


23,339.00 


7,766.00 


183,702.72 


-0- 


6,588.00 


-0- 


263,097.51 


Sampson 


61,511.50 


47,423.00 


8,763.50 


210,477.46 


-0- 


1,918.00 


-0- 


330,093.46 


Scotland 


34,531.00 


24,064.96 


4,038.00 


115,342.05 


-0- 


4,835.00 


-0- 


182,811.01 


Stanly 


45,009.00 


16,266.00 


5,208.00 


192,257.72 


-0- 


6,310.00 


-0- 


265,050.72 


Stokes 


20,347.50 


11,816.00 


1,125.00 


74,749.00 


-0- 


502.00 


-0- 


108,539.50 


Surry 


64,894.00 


54,830.30 


4,822.00 


208,943.83 


845.00 


5,764.00 


280.00 


340,379.13 


Swain 


8,048.00 


5,406.00 


3,905.00 


28,408.75 


-0- 


320.00 


-0- 


46,087.75 


Transylvania 


16,561.42 


13,103.49 


6,543.68 


76,953.77 


-0- 


2,216.00 


-0- 


115,378.36 


Tyrrell 


4,345.50 


2,928.00 


40.00 


15,571.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


22,884.50 


Union 


55,688.75 


41,131.00 


7,919.00 


241,222.61 


-0- 


6,953.00 


-0- 


352,914.36 


Vance 


46,455.00 


21,188.00 


4,632.50 


152,960.07 


-0- 


7,387.00 


-0- 


232,622.57 


Wake 


375,427.19 


80,614.00 


33,450.00 


1,295,598.18 


6,060.00 


150,178.62 


165.00 


1,941,492.99 


Warren 


15,705.00 


11,809.00 


1,375.00 


56,512.00 


-0- 


444.00 


-0- 


85,845.00 


Washington 


12,331.00 


9,509.00 


1,258.00 


32,751.23 


-0- 


892.00 


-0- 


56,741.23 


Watauga 


26,720.00 


17,521.00 


4,380.00 


158,554.26 


-0- 


3,646.00 


-0- 


210,821.26 


Wayne 


91,468.00 


39,146.00 


5,960.39 


299,282.44 


3,265.00 


22,623.00 


25.00 


461,769.83 


Wilkes 


60,727.00 


33,293.00 


6,167.52 


254,899.23 


-0- 


1,074.00 


-0- 


356,160.75 


Wilson 


62,320.00 


37,782.67 


9.808.00 


152,980.32 


-0- 


15,020.89 


-0- 


277,911.88 


Yadkin 


30,604.00 


23,410.00 


5,281.96 


176,506.45 


-0- 


404.00 


-0- 


236,206.41 


Yancey 


9,283.00 


7,676.50 


1,070.00 


22,919.00 


-0- 


414.00 


-0- 


41,362.50 


State Totals 


$5,815,712.59 


$2,807,040.61 


8511,155.83 $20,762,988.44 $301,729.00 


$1,395,095.63 


$9,987.00 $31,603,709.10 



59 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



The State provides legal counsel for indigent persons in 
a variety of actions and proceedings, as specified in the 
North Carolina General Statutes, Sections 7A-450er seq. 
These include criminal proceedings, judicial hospitaliza- 
tion proceedings, juvenile proceedings which may result 
in commitment to an institution or transfer to superior 
court for trial as an adult. Legal representation for indi- 
gents may be by assignment of private counsel, by 
assignment of special public counsel (involving mental 
hospital commitments), or by assignment of a public 
defender. 

Seven of North Carolina's judicial districts have an 
office of public defender: Districts 3, 12, 15B, 18, 26, 27A, 
and 28. The other 27 districts utilize only assignments of 
private counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in 
the seven districts which have a public defender in the 
event of a conflict of interests involving the public 
defender's office and the indigent and in the event of 
unusual circumstances when, in the opinion of the court, 
the proper administration of justice requires the assign- 
ment of private counsel rather than the public defender in 
those cases. 

The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to 
October 1 , 1 98 1 , appellate defender services were funded 
by a one-year federal grant.) Pursuant to assignments 
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the 
Appellate Defender and his staff to provide criminal 
defense appellate services to indigent persons who are 
appealing their convictions to either the Supreme Court 
or the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Defender is under 
the general supervision of the Chief Justice. The Chief 



Justice may, consistent with the resources available to the 
Appellate Defender and to insure quality criminal defense 
services, authorize certain appeals to be assigned to a 
local public defender office or to private assigned counsel 
instead of to the Appellate Defender. The case and cost 
data reported below reflect the activity of this office in 
both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1983. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special coun- 
sel at each of the State's four mental hospitals, to repre- 
sent patients in commitment or recommitment hearings 
before a district court judge. Under North Carolina law, 
each patient committed to a mental hospital is entitled to 
a judicial hearing (before a district court judge) within 90 
days after the initial commitment, a further hearing 
within 180 days after the initial commitment, and there- 
after a hearing once each year during the continuance of 
an involuntary commitment. 

Finally, the State provides a guardian ad litem for 
children alleged to be neglected in juvenile petitions 
unless the court finds that the child is not in need of and 
cannot benefit from such representation. 

The cost of the entire program of indigent representa- 
tion, rounded to the nearest dollar, was $12,284,1 19 in 
the 1982-83 fiscal year, compared to $1 1,033,650 in the 
1981-82 fiscal year, an increase of 11.3%. The total 
amount expended for representation of indigents was 
13.0% of total Judicial Department expenditures in the 
1982-83 fiscal year. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents for the fiscal year, July 1 , 1 982 
through June 30, 1983. 



60 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Capital offense cases 
Adult cases (other than capital) 
Juvenile cases 

As guardian ad litem for juveniles 
Totals 

Public Defender Offices 

District 3 
District 12 
♦District 15B 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 28 
Totals 

Appellate Defender Office 206 $ 325,297 $1,579.11 

Special Counsel at mental hospitals $ 150,396 

Transcripts, records and briefs 371,583 

Professional examinations 36,872 

Expert witness fees 32,778 

GRAND TOTAL $12,284,119 



Number 




Total 


A 


verage 


of Cases 




Cost 


Per Case 


350 


$ 


609,266 


$1,740.76 


37,643 




7,216,860 




191.72 


5,411 




512,200 




94.66 


5,222 




809,101 




154.94 


48,626 


$ 


9,147,427 


$ 


188.12 


1,641 


$ 


322,320 


S 


196.42 


2,730 




395,969 




145.04 


— 




2,367 






3,057 




498,528 




163.08 


5,729 




552,173 




96.38 


1,771 




248,411 




140.27 


1,475 




199,999 




135.59 


16,403 


$ 


2,219,766 


$ 


135.33 



* District 15B Public Defender Office was established in June, 1983. Expenses include only acquisition of initial library. Positions were 
established in July, 1983. No case activity in this office during June, 1983. 

61 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Special Counsel at Mental Hospitals 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each of 
the State's four mental hospitals, to represent patients 
in commitment or recommitment hearings, was $150,396 
for the 1982-83 fiscal year. There were a total of 10,895 
hearings held during the year, for an average cost per 
hearing of SI 3.90 for the special counsel service. 



The following table presents data on the hearings 
held at each of the mental hospitals in 1982-83. The 
total number of hearings in 1982-83 increased by 469 
over the number held in 1981-82, for a 4.5% increase. 



Initial Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

First Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Grand Totals 







Dorothea 


John 




Iroughton 


Cherry 


Dix 


Umstead 


Totals 


758 


978 


602 


1,330 


3,668 


283 


158 


12 


216 


669 


1,667 


1,215 


508 


717 


4,107 


2,708 


2,351 


1,122 


2,263 


8,444 


47 


209 


143 


282 


731 


10 


1 


1 


10 


22 


s:s 


134 


44 


91 


357 


195 


344 


188 


383 


1,110 


146 


299 


323 


353 


1,121 


2 





1 





3 


42 


20 


11 


24 


97 


190 


319 


335 


377 


1,221 


: 

3 


17 


2 


36 


58 


30 


3 


X 


1 


42 


8 


8 


1 


3 


20 


41 


2K 


91 


40 


120 


1,004 


1,503 


1,070 


2,001 


5,578 


325 


162 


22 


227 


736 


1,805 


1,377 


564 


835 


4,581 


3,134 


3,042 


1,656 


3,063 


10,895 



62 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 1982-83* 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



Number of Cases 



District 1 



Camden 


26 


Chowan 


103 


Currituck 


73 


Dare 


124 


Gates 


29 


Pasquotank 


336 


Perquimans 


51 


District Totals 


742 


District 2 




Beaufort 


293 


Hyde 


26 


Martin 


193 


Tyrrell 


44 


Washington 


115 


District Totals 


671 


District 3 




Carteret 


41 


Craven 


52 


Pamlico 


7 


Pitt 


146 


District Totals 


246 


District 4 




Duplin 


308 


Jones 


50 


Onslow 


574 


Sampson 


352 


District Totals 


1,289 


District 5 




New Hanover 


795 


Pender 


76 


District Totals 


871 


District 6 




Bertie 


191 


Halifax 


543 


Hertford 


270 


Northampton 


145 


District Totals 


1,149 


District 7 





Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



622 

584 

751 

1,957 



Expenditures 

6,056.35 

24,037.23 
24,550.33 
32,124.30 
10,165.90 
75,650.58 
18,409.57 

190,994.26 



77,107.91 
6,321.70 
51,015.00 
11,018.95 
22,449.00 

167,912.56 



11,265.75 

18,681.23 

1,725.00 

48,108.03 

79,780.01 



94,475.63 

12,512.98 

170,596.24 

96,736.93 

374,321.78 



258,028.84 
23,822.19 

281,851.03 



37,299.90 

102,557.25 

46,712.91 

34,273.50 

220,843.56 



138,556.17 
130,085.21 
178,976.28 

447,617.66 



Number of Cases 

4 
5 
9 

8 

2 
12 

_J> 

45 



6 

3 

14 

14 

37 



32 

57 

42 
131 



36 

4 

99 

87 

226 



56 
60 



2S 
30 

53 

11 
149 



28 
31 
19 

78 



Expenditures 

337.10 
425.50 
879.90 
1,901.12 
227.50 
700.00 
415.00 

4,886.12 



350.00 

150.00 

1,100.00 

750.00 
2,350.00 



3,250.00 
9,775.09 

7,584.22 
20,609.31 



4,000.00 

300.00 

8,650.00 

8,645.00 

21,595.00 



7,801.75 
380.90 

8,182.65 



2,245.00 
2,955.00 
3,354.00 
3,966.00 

12,520.00 



3,700.00 
4,925.00 
3,531.50 

12,156.50 



♦Includes all orders received in FY 1982-83 of which $2,785,856 was paid in July 1983. 



63 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 1982-83* 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 







Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


District 8 












Greene 




110 


26,374.24 


3 


475.50 


Lenoir 




938 


145,443.12 


84 


8,594.43 


Wayne 




828 


181,086.31 


115 


17,207.87 


District 


Totals 


1,876 


352,903.67 


202 


26,277.80 


District 9 












Franklin 




207 


39,849.67 


14 


1,825.00 


Granville 




296 


42,349.20 


10 


1,935.00 


Person 




253 


53,008.16 


25 


3,790.00 


Vance 




316 


57,726.60 


IK 


3,291.42 


Warren 




115 


17,336.00 


\1 


2,282.48 


District 


Totals 


1,187 


210,269.63 


80 


13,123.90 


District 10 












Wake 




2,874 


561,843.06 


278 


65,835.64 


District 11 












Harnett 




410 


58,709.36 


90 


7,847.00 


Johnston 




665 


79,453.73 


43 


3,745.00 


Lee 




479 


72,018.86 


31 


3,074.00 


District 


Totals 


1,554 


210,181.95 


164 


14,666.00 


District 12 












Cumberlan 


d 


134 


49,033.56 


141 


11,128.59 


Hoke 




_7 


4,934.75 


j4 


1,010.00 


District 


Totals 


141 


53,968.31 


155 


12,138.59 


District 13 












Bladen 




396 


76,445.43 


21 


2,384.00 


Brunswick 




273 


52,897.00 


40 


3,821.72 


Columbus 




540 


102,184.00 


34 


4,155.00 


District 


Totals 


1,209 


231,526.43 


100 


10,360.72 


District 14 












Durham 




2,526 


462,288.27 


189 


39,984.42 


District 15 A 










Alamance 




898 


177,475.20 


94 


8,494.45 


District 15 B 










Chatham 




143 


29,623.91 


15 


1,588.00 


Orange 




631 


123,209.68 


1L2 


16,408.17 


District 


Totals 


774 


152,833.59 


127 


17,996.17 


District 16 












Robeson 




1,214 


211,973.33 


168 


7,675.00 


Scotland 




442 


57,714.00 


56 


4,850.00 


District 


Totals 


1,656 


269,687.33 


224 


12,525.00 



'Includes all orders received in FY 1982-83 of which $2,785,856 was paid in July 1983. 

64 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 1982-83* 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 17 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


149 
791 
135 
665 


20,929.80 
139,092.81 

22,550.00 
118,048.71 


21 

26 
8 

54 


1,675.00 

2,527.00 

600.00 

5,272.00 


District Totals 


1,740 


300,621.32 


114 


10,074.00 


District 18 










Guilford 


447 


130,416.64 


360 


57,543.59 


District 19 A 










Cabarrus 
Rowan 


697 
1,048 


144,263.34 
161,658.99 


77 
54 


9,485.00 
6,817.11 


District Totals 


1,745 


305,922.33 


131 


16,302.11 


District 19 B 










Montgomery 
Randolph 


273 
505 


59,465.63 

94,864.85 


8 
35 


1,194.60 

4,132.85 


District Totals 


778 


154,330.48 


43 


5,327.45 


District 20 










Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


352 
629 
586 
352 
641 


53,580.64 
85,290.19 
85,937.66 
55,328.43 
100,200.86 


16 

M 

43 

50 

142 


1,275.00 
7,400.00 
4,175.00 
5,325.00 
13,735.32 


District Totals 


2,560 


380,337.78 


335 


31,910.32 


District 21 










Forsyth 


3,271 


471,555.54 


234 


28,207.60 


District 22 










Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


166 
759 
112 
662 


32,367.90 
134,294.48 

20,152.97 
126,397.15 


26 

136 

25 

63 


3,250.00 

17,240.50 

2,777.00 

6,790.98 


District Totals 


1,699 


313,212.50 


250 


30,058.48 


District 23 










Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


34 
145 
418 
154 


10,325.00 
14,574.32 
79,563.50 
19,526.40 


3 

17 
66 
24 


275.00 

925.00 

4,240.00 

1,660.00 


District Totals 


751 


123,989.22 


110 


7,100.00 



♦Includes all orders received in FY 1982-83 of which $2,785,856 was paid in July 1983. 

65 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 1982-83* 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 24 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


132 
74 
68 

187 
32 


32,515.30 
13,035.00 
11,090.65 
61,353.84 
10,075.50 


20 

M) 

2 

J 


3,350.00 

3,305.00 

425.00 

300.00 


District Totals 


493 


128,070.29 


55 


7,380.00 


District 25 










Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


581 

796 

1,051 


105,878.34 
115,602.25 
166,569.55 


63 
30 

79 


12,344.29 

3,681.75 

11,458.75 


District Totals 


2,428 


388,050.14 


172 


27,484.79 


District 26 










Mecklenburg 


2,824 


590,956.76 


505 


226,981.41 


District 27 A 










Gaston 


215 


39,117.53 


44 


6,050.00 


District 27 B 










Cleveland 
Lincoln 


453 

191 


92,667.25 
49,377.50 


47 
17 


6,450.00 
2,650.00 


District Totals 


644 


142,044.75 


64 


9,100.00 



District 28 
Buncombe 



335 



49,755.79 



8 71 



12,370.75 



District 29 



Henderson 


358 


82,274.40 


McDowell 


254 


53,019.62 


Polk 


71 


16,826.77 


Rutherford 


272 


81,889.52 


Transylvania 


114 


24,103.54 


District Totals 


1,069 


258,113.85 


District 30 






Cherokee 


91 


14,755.39 


Clay 


38 


4,183.24 


Graham 


21 


5,586.50 


Ha v wood 


275 


43,080.67 


Jackson 


119 


23,833.93 


Macon 


198 


18,030.39 


Swain 


43 


6,063.12 


District Totals 


785 


115,533.24 


STATE TOTALS 


43,404 


8,338,326.46 



59 


8,225.00 


30 


4,460.00 


2 


250.00 


31 


2,950.00 


10 


1,575.00 


132 


17,460.00 


25 


2,420.78 


1 


75.00 


12 


650.00 


68 


4,020.00 


$1 


2,600.00 


14 


1,281.52 


12 


1,000.83 


163 


12,048.13 


222 


809,100.90 



♦Includes all orders received in FY 1982-83 of which $2,785,856 was paid in July 1983. 



66 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 

(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1983) 

Positions 

Authorized Salary Ranges 

SUPREME COURT 

7 Justices $57,012-558,212 

23 Staff personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, 

law clerks, library staff) $1 1,484-539,756 

7 Secretarial personnel $1 1,484-$ 17,076 

COURT OF APPEALS 

12 Judges $53,976-555,188 

29 Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff, 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) $ 9,264-$32,856 

18 Secretarial personnel $1 1,484-517,076 

SUPERIOR COURT 

68 Judges $47,928-549,500 

74 Staff personnel $14,916-529,880 

40 Secretarial personnel 5 9,264-515,612 

DISTRICT COURT 

142 Judges $38,808-540,344 

61 1 Magistrates $ 9,936-515,372 

33 Staff personnel $10,524-$ 15,612 

6 Secretarial personnel $ 9,264-$13,644 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

35 District Attorneys $44,580 

273 Staff personnel $12,012-542,456 

73 Secretarial personnel 5 8,856-515,612 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

100 Clerks of Superior Court 520,016-537,608 

1,367 Staff personnel $ 8,148-524,732 

7 Secretarial personnel $ 9,264-$ 1 3,644 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

6 Public Defenders $44,580 

54 Staff personnel $12,540-$40,980 

20 Secretarial personnel $ 9,264-$ 15,61 2 

4 Special counsel at mental hospitals $18,000-522,488 

4 Secretarial personnel $ 9,264-$13,644 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

274 Court counselors $12,012-528,500 

53 Secretarial personnel 5 8,856-515,612 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts 550,940 

1 Assistant Director 536,384 

1 14 Staff personnel 510,524-537,908 



67 



PART IV 
TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 



This part of the Annual Report presents pertinent data 
on a district-by-district and county-by-county basis. For 
ease of reference, this part is divided into a superior court 
division section and a district court division section. 

The data within the two sections generally parallel each 
other in terms of organization, with each section subdi- 
vided into civil and criminal case categories. With some 
exceptions, there are three basic data tables for each case 
category: a caseload inventory (filings, dispositions and 
pending) table; a table on the manner of dispositions; and a 
table on ages of cases disposed of during the year and ages 
of cases pending at the end of the year. Pending and age 
data are not provided for district court motor vehicle 
criminal cases, for civil cases (small claims) referred to 
magistrates, and for juvenile cases, inasmuch as these cate- 
gories of cases are not reported by case file number. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical pic- 
ture ofcaseflow during the 1982-83 year. Items recorded in 
this table include the number of cases pending at the begin- 
ning of the year, the number of new cases filed, the number 
of cases disposed of during the year, and the number of 
cases left pending at the end of the year. The caseload 
inventory also shows the total caseload (the number pend- 
ing at the beginning of the year plus the number filed 
during the year) and the percentage of the caseload which 
was disposed of during the year. 

The aging tables show the ages of the cases pending on 
June 30, 1983 as well as the ages of the cases disposed of 
during 1982-83. These tables also show both mean (aver- 
age) and median ages for each set of cases — those pending 
at the end of the year and those that were disposed of 
during the year. The median age of a group of cases is, by 
definition, the age of a hypothetical case which is older 
than 50% of the total set of cases and younger than the 
other 50%. 

Unlike the median, the mean age can be substantially 
raised (or lowered) if even a small number of very old (or 
very young) cases are included. For example, if only a 
single two-year old case was included among ten cases aged 
three months, the median age would be 90 days and the 
mean (average) age would be 148.2 days. A substantial 
difference between the median and average ages, therefore, 
indicates the presence of a number of rather long-pending, 
or short-pending, cases. 



Separate summary tables at the end of Part IV show the 
comparative rankings, for the 1982-83 year, in terms of 
percentage of disposition of caseloads for the 34 judicial 
districts and the 100 counties. 

The case statistics in Part IV have been calculated from 
filing and disposition case data submitted to the Adminis- 
trative Office of the Courts by the 100 clerks of superior 
court across the State. The present case reporting system is 
primarily a manual one: weekly reports from each clerk's 
office are mailed to Raleigh, where they are computer- 
coded, entered and processed. Pending case information is 
computer-calculated from the filing and disposition data. 
The accuracy of the pending case figures is, of course, 
dependent upon timely and accurate filing and disposition 
data. 

Periodic comparisons by clerk personnel of their actual 
pending case files against AOC's computer-produced 
pending case lists, followed by indicated corrections, is 
necessary to maintain completely accurate data in the 
AOC computer file. Yet, staff resource in the clerks' offices 
is not sufficient to make such physical inventory checks as 
frequently and as completely as would be necessary to 
maintain full accuracy in AOC's computer files. Thus, it is 
recognized that some of the figures published in the follow- 
ing tables have errors of some degree. 

Another accuracy-related problem inherent in a manual 
reporting system is the lack of absolute consistency in the 
published year-end and year-beginning pending figures. 
The number of cases pending at the end of a reporting year 
should ideally be identical with the number of published 
pending cases at the beginning of the next reporting year. 
In reality, this is rarely the case. Experience has shown that 
inevitably some filings and dispositions which occurred in 
the preceding year do not get reported until the subsequent 
year. The later-reported data is regarded as being more 
complete reporting and is used, thereby producing some 
differences between the prior year's end-pending figures 
and the current year's beginning-pending figures. 

Notwithstanding the indicated limitations in the data 
reporting and data-processing system, it is believed that the 
published figures are sufficiently adequate to fully justify 
their use. In any event, the published figures are the best 
and most accurate data currently available. 



71 



PART IV, Section 1 



Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The Superior Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow during the 1982-83 year of 
cases pending, filed and disposed of in the State's super- 
ior courts, that is, cases before superior court judges. 
Data is also presented on cases pending, filed and dis- 
posed of before the lOOclerks of superior court, who have 
original jurisdiction over estates cases and special proceed- 
ings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three 
categories of cases filed in the superior courts: civil cases, 
felony cases which are within the original jurisdiction of 
the superior courts, and misdemeanor appeals from the 
district courts to superior courts, for trial de novo. 

During 1982-83, as the bar graph on the following page 
illustrates, felony cases contributed the greatest propor- 
tion of all case filings (51. 1%), misdemeanor appeals the 
second greatest proportion of all case filings (32.6%), 
with civil cases amounting to 16. 3% of total case filings in 
the superior courts. There was a slight decrease in civil 
case filings during the 1982-83 year but this was more 
than offset by increases in the criminal case categories. 
The proportions for the three categories of cases are in 
line with the prevailing pattern of recent years. 

As in previous years, the following second bar chart 
indicates that the "typical" superior court civil case takes 
considerably longer to dispose of than the "typical"crimi- 
nal case. The bar chart shows that the numbers of cases 
filed and disposed of during 1982-83 in the two criminal 
case categories (felonies and misdemeanor appeals) are 
considerably larger than year-end case pending totals. On 
the other hand, the total number of civil cases pending at 
year's end is close to the number of filings and and 
dispositions. 

Data presented in the second bar graph, as well as in 
the following tables covering the ages of superior court 
cases, clearly supports the longer disposition period con- 
clusion regarding civil cases. The median-age data, which 
is presented in the second bar graph, shows that the 
median age of superior court civil cases pending on June 
30, 1983 is 164days. Similar data, covering pending cases 
in the felony and misdemeanor appeal categories, shows 
median ages of 80 and 66 days, respectively. For superior 
court civil case dispositions in 1982-83, the median case 
age at disposition was 302 days, compared to 81 days for 
felony cases at disposition and 66 days for misdemeanor 
appeals at disposition. Comparing this median-age data 
with the same information for 1981-82, it is significant 
that the median age of pending civil cases dropped from 
254 days as of June 30, 1982 to 164 days as of June 30, 



1983; and the median age for civil cases at disposition 
dropped from 307 days in 198 1-82 to 302 days in 1982-83. 
This reflects an improvement in the overall pattern of 
both criminal and civil case dispositions. 

The 1982-83 aging data for pending cases in the two 
criminal case categories show decreases from the median 
ages reported for 1981-82. The median age of pending 
felony cases dropped from 83 days as of June 30, 1982 to 
80 days as of June 30, 1983, and a similar decrease was 
recorded in the median age of pending misdemeanor 
appeals from 69 days as of June 30, 1982 to 66 days as of 
June 30, 1983. The median age of felony cases at disposi- 
tion also rose during the past fiscal year from 73 days in 
1 98 1 -82 to 8 1 days in 1 982-83. The median age of misde- 
meanor appeals at disposition increased from 62 days in 
1981-82 to 66 days in 1982-83. 

These differences in the median ages of cases disposed 
of or still pending in superior courts can be attributed in 
part to the priority given criminal cases. The right of a 
criminal case defendant to a "speedy trial" is guaranteed 
in both the United States and North Carolina Constitu- 
tions; and current North Carolina statutes (G.S. 1 5A-701 
et seq.) prescribe that criminal cases must be tried within 
120 days of filing unless there has been justifiable delay 
for one or more of the good causes specified in the sta- 
tutes. No comparable "standard" for the speedy disposi- 
tion of civil cases has been adopted in North Carolina, 
although the North Carolina Constitution does provide 
that "right and justice shall be administered without 
favor, denial, or delay" in the section declaring every 
person's right to legal remedy for "injury in his lands, 
goods, person or reputation. "(Article I, Section 18, N. C. 
Constitution) 

During 1982-83, a Statewide total of 85,488 cases of all 
types were filed in the superior courts. This represents an 
increase of only 917 (1.1%) over 1981-82 case filings of 
84,57 1 , which is less than the increase trend for filings in 
recent years. A review of similar data for the period 
between 1977 and the end of 1980-81 reveals that filings 
increased at an average rate of 10.2%. 

As for the manner of dispositions, it is noteworthy that 
jury trials in superior court continue to be responsible for 
a low percentage of case dispositions: 899 civil cases 
(6. 1%) out of a total of 14,677; 2,618 felony cases (6. 1%) 
out of a total of 42,966; and 1,381 misdemeanor cases 
(5. l%,)out of a total of 27, 154 misdemeanor dispositions. 

The data tables also show that pleas of guilty are 
entered in a majority (54.2%) of criminal case disposi- 
tions in the superior courts. 



75 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 

1982-83 



50 



41) 



I 

II 


I 

s 
\ 
\ 
D 
S 



f 
c 

s 

I 

s 



30 



20 



10 



Filings 
Dispositions 
End Pending 



43, 70S 



42,966 



I3.X94 



14,677 14,635 



T 

CIVIL 



2^886 



54 



14,122 



7,556 



FELONIES 



T 
MISDEMEANORS 



For the second straight year, civil case dispositions 
exceeded ( 105.6%) the number of civil cases filed during 
the same period. Felony case filings in 1982-83 exceeded 



dispositions during that year by 742 cases. During the 
prior year, the excess of felony filings over felony disposi- 
tions was 2,087 cases. 



76 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1973-1983 



90 



SO 



70 



60 



T 
H 

O 

U 
s 

A 
N 
I) 
S 



o 

F 50 



C 

A 
S 
E 



40 



30 




Dispositions 



End Pending 
.•• • . 



73 74 75 76 



~i 1 1 1 r~ — — 

77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 



This graph portrays civil and criminal caseload in the 
superior courts. Filings and dispositions continued the 



increasing trend of the last five years. The year end pend- 
ing case count increased by only 1 1 cases over last year. 



77 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1973-1983 



i 

H 


I 

s 

\ 

N 
D 
S 





1 



c 

s 

i 

S 



I- 



10 



Fnd Pending 
• • • 




Filings 



4 Dispositions 



1 i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 

73 74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 



Dispositions for civil cases exceeded filings for the second 
year: as a result, the number of year-end pending cases 



was less than the number pending at the beginning of 
1982-83. 



78 



LIFETIMES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 
Median Ages of Cases Pending 6/30/83 and of Cases Disposed of During 1982-83 



CIVIL 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 




164.0 



CIVIL 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 



302.0 




81.0 



66.0 



H 



Pending 
Cases 

Disposed 
Cases 



100 



200 



300 



400 



The median age of a case category is that age with respect 
to which 50% of all cases in the category are younger and 
50% of all cases are older; it is the 50th percentile of ages 
of all cases in the category. As shown in the above graph, 
the median age of all civil superior court cases disposed of 
during 1982-83 was 302 days and the median age of all 



criminal superior court cases disposed of during 1982-83 
was less than 81 days, reflecting the very substantially 
greater time taken to process civil cases through the 
superior courts. A similar relationship exists with respect 
to the median ages of pending civil and criminal cases. 



7 l ) 



District 1 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

■ I S2 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/83 



Camden 


19 


11 


in 


L9 


63 


3 


11 


Chowan 


28 


34 


S3 


26 


50 





26 


Currituck 


33 


31 


t.4 


38 


59 


3 


26 


Dare 


85 


84 


169 


76 


44 


9 


93 


Gates 


13 


9 


?2 


12 


34 


5 


10 


Pasquotank 


41 


7'. 


116 


57 


49 


1 


39 


Perquimans 


33 


u 


63 


30 


47 


6 


33 


District Totals 


251 


265 


516 


258 


50 





258 


District 2 
















Beaufort 


55 


HI 


146 


61 


41 


7 


85 


Hyde 


13 


17 


32 


14 


43 


7 


18 


Martin 


39 


35 


74 


41 


55 


4 


33 


Tyrrell 


8 


:: 


16 


9 


56 


2 


7 


Washington 


30 


30 


60 


33 


55 





27 


District Totals 


157 


171 


328 


158 


48 


1 


170 


District 3 
















Carteret 


136 


124 


260 


121 


46 


5 


139 


Craven 


174 


193 


367 


183 


49 


8 


184 


Paml ico 


15 


21 


36 


19 


52 


7 


17 


Pitt 


204 


198 


402 


201 


50 





201 


District Totals 


529 


536 


1,065 


524 


49 


2 


541 


District 4 
















Duplin 


100 


87 


187 


Hf, 


45 


9 


101 


Jones 


18 


31 


39 


18 


46 


1 


21 


Onslow 


157 


177 


334 


135 


40 


4 


199 


Sampson 


71 


75 


146 


78 


53 


4 


68 


District Totals 


346 


360 


706 


317 


44 


9 


389 


District 5 
















New Hanover 


251 


213 


464 


261 


56 


a 


203 


Pender 


51 


13 


64 


28 


43 


i 


36 


District Totals 


302 


226 


528 


289 


54 


7 


239 


District 6 
















Bertie 


43 


33 


/l 


4f, 


64 


.7 


25 


Halifax 


78 


',4 


142 


63 


44 


3 


79 


Hertford 


56 


56 


112 


43 


37 


5 


70 


Northampton 


35 


34 


69 


26 


37 


6 


43 


District Total s 


212 


182 


394 


177 


44 


9 


217 


District 7 
















Edgecombe 


73 


105 


178 


90 


50 


5 


88 


;iash 


144 


126 


270 


154 


57 





116 


Wi lson 


105 


100 


205 


106 


31 


7 


99 


District Totals 


322 


331 


653 


350 


53 


5 


303 


District 3 

















Greene 12 14 26 11 42.3 15 

Lenoir 133 161 294 156 53.0 138 

k/ayne 222 194 416 240 57.6 176 

District Totals 367 369 736 407 55.2 329 



80 



District 9 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982- June 30, 1983 

Pending Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/82 Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/83 



Frankl in 


71 


51 


122 


(,() 


49.1 


62 


Granvi 1 le 


59 


41 


100 


5 3 


53.0 


47 


Person 


34 


28 


62 


J 3 


53.2 


29 


Vance 


78 


68 


146 


n 


50.0 


73 


Warren 


24 


21 


45 


?\ 


46.6 


24 


District Totals 


266 


209 


475 


240 


50.5 


235 


District 10 














Wake 


1,309 


1,309 


2,618 


1,409 


53.8 


1,209 


District 11 














Harnett 


95 


143 


238 


128 


53.7 


110 


Johnston 


162 


269 


431 


292 


67.7 


139 


Lee 


63 


73 


136 


87 


63.9 


49 


District Totals 


320 


485 


805 


507 


62.9 


298 


District 12 














Cumberland 


399 


430 


829 


355 


42.8 


474 


Hoke 


4 


17 


."1 


10 


47.6 


11 


District Totals 


403 


447 


850 


365 


42.9 


485 


District 13 














Bladen 


34 


60 


94 


52 


55.3 


f\7 


Brunswick 


75 


59 


134 


73 


54.4 


bl 


Col umbus 


141 


104 


245 


107 


43.6 


138 


District Totals 


250 


223 


473 


232 


49.0 


241 


District 14 














Durham 


462 


452 


914 


484 


52.9 


430 


District 15A 














Alamance 


187 


156 


343 


165 


48.1 


178 


District 15B 














Chatham 


35 


57 


92 


51 


55.4 


41 


Orange 


152 


151 


303 


145 


47.8 


158 


District Totals 


187 


208 


395 


196 


49.6 


199 


District 16 














Robeson 


133 


139 


272 


142 


52.2 


130 


Scotland 


31 


18 


49 


34 


69.3 


15 


District Totals 


164 


157 


321 


176 


54.8 


145 


District 17A 














Caswell 


17 


13 


30 


21 


70.0 


9 


Rockingham 


120 


131 


251 


158 


62.9 


93 


District Totals 


137 


144 


281 


179 


63.7 


102 


District 17B 















Stokes 25 28 53 36 67.9 17 

Surry 100 157 257 143 55.6 114 

District Totals 125 185 310 179 57.7 131 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 18 
Guilford 


Pending 

7/1/82 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/83 


Greensboro 
D oint 


1,310 
259 


849 
219 


2,159 
478 


886 
208 


41.0 
43.5 


1,273 
270 


District Totals 


1,569 


1,068 


2,637 


1,094 


41.4 


1,543 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 
Rowan 


176 
149 


109 
156 


285 
305 


139 
177 


48.7 
58.0 


146 
128 


District Totals 


325 


265 


590 


316 


53.5 


274 


District 19B 














Montgomery 
Randolph 


22 

171 


1-' 
117 


34 
288 


14 
132 


41.1 
45.8 


20 

156 


District Totals 


193 


129 


322 


146 


45.3 


176 


District 20 














Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


67 

161 

126 

94 

162 


50 
61 
50 
62 
132 


117 
222 
176 
156 
294 


49 
Of. 
82 
58 
158 


41.8 
44.1 
46.5 
37.1 
53.7 


68 
124 

98 
136 


District Totals 


610 


355 


965 


445 


46.1 


520 


District 21 















Forsyth 571 702 1,273 695 54.5 578 

District 22 

Alexander 11 40 

Davidson 156 182 



5] 


20 


39.2 


31 


338 


193 


57.1 


145 


100 


46 


46.0 


54 


321 


192 


59.8 


129 



Davie 49 51 

Iredell 130 191 

346 464 810 451 55.6 359 

District 23 



Alleghany 


5 


16 


?\ 


o 


42.8 


12 


Ashe 


17 


19 


36 


16 


44.4 


20 


Wilkes 


146 


104 


250 


124 


49.6 


126 


Yadkin 


24 


37 


61 


29 


47.5 


32 


District Totals 


192 


176 


368 


178 


48.3 


190 


District 24 
















25 


55 


."/) 


:6 


43.7 


46 


Madison 


30 


29 


60 


22 


37.2 


37 


Mitchell 


24 


27 


51 


;<6 


49.0 


26 




6 7 


74 


141 


(,;•; 


48.2 


73 


Yancey 


21 


18 


39 


■/■/ 


56.4 


17 


District Totals 


167 


203 


370 


172 


46.4 


198 


District 25 














E jrk e 


195 


155 


350 


149 


42.5 


201 




174 


130 


304 


151 


49.6 


153 


Catav/ba 


290 


288 


578 


313 


54.1 


265 


Di strict Totals 


659 


573 


1,232 


613 


49.7 


619 


ct 26 















2,4?,0 1,788 4,268 1,944 45.5 2,324 

82 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 27A 
Gaston 



Pending 

7/1/82 



577 



Filed 



406 



Total 
Caseload 



983 



Disposed 



601 



Vc Caseload 
Disposed 

61.1 



Pending 

6/30/83 



382 



District 27B 



Cleveland 


132 


150 


Lincoln 


40 


74 


District Totals 


172 


224 


District 28 







Buncombe 



506 



543 



282 
114 

396 



1,049 



158 
67 

225 



589 



56.0 
58.7 

56.8 



56.1 



124 
47 

171 



460 



District 29 



Henderson 


171 


112 


283 


109 


38.5 


174 


Mc Dowel 1 


51 


50 


101 


55 


54.4 


46 


Polk 


20 


21 


41 


L9 


46.3 


22 


Rutherford 


95 


86 


181 


73 


40.3 


108 


Transylvania 


42 


49 


91 


46 


50.5 


45 


District Totals 


379 


318 


697 


302 


43.3 


395 


District 30 














Cherokee 


43 


25 


6,", 


38 


55.8 


30 


Clay 


12 


11 


2 ', 


17 


73.9 


6 


Graham 


17 


6 


23 


13 


56.5 


10 


Haywood 


97 


84 


181 


79 


43.6 


102 


Jackson 


122 


57 


179 


78 


43.5 


101 


Macon 


49 


57 


106 


36 


33.9 


70 


Swa i n 


36 


25 


61 


13 


54.0 


28 


District Totals 


376 


265 


641 


294 


45.8 


347 


State Totals 


15,418 


13,894 


29,312 


14,677 


50.0 


14,635 



83 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASES 

1982-1983 



JUDGE 



CLERK 




VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 



The above graph of disposition methods for civil superior 
cases during 1982-83 is very similar to the comparable 
graph for previous years. As in the past, voluntary dis- 
missals represent the largest number of dispositions. 



When compared to 1981-82, these percentages show 
increased dispositions within the voluntary dismissal and 
judge categories, and declines in the clerk and other 
categories. 



84 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 



Total 




Dispositions 


Judge 


19 


2 


26 


10 


38 


If. 


76 


18 


12 


7 


57 


18 


30 


7 



258 



61 
14 
41 
9 
33 

158 



78 



17 
5 

14 
3 

16 

55 



121 


35 


183 


54 


19 


2 


201 


78 



524 



169 



Jury 



8 
20 

] 
7 

36 



Clerk 





Voluntary 




rk 


Dismissal 


Other 


3 


7 


5 


8 


4 


2 


7 


1? 


3 


8 


38 


10 


3 


1 


1 


17 


17 


4 


6 


1 ! 


3 



52 



8 

(") 
4 


4 
16 



92 



14 
7 

12 
3 

11 

47 



8 


56 


17 


85 


1 


8 


l:: 


98 



46 



247 



28 



1/ 
1 

8 
3 

2 

31 



14 
7 
5 

n 

26 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 



86 


27 


18 


4 


135 


44 


78 


25 



317 



100 



13 


11 
9 

3 3 



7 


^4 


4 


9 


1 


73 


5 


39 



17 



155 



5 
1 
6 


12 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



261 


88 


28 


15 


289 


103 


46 


24 


63 


34 


42 


21 


26 


7 



177 



9D 
154 
106 

350 



33 
47 
46 

126 



11 
3 

14 



2 

8 
7 

17 



15 
(l 

15 



147 
9 

156 



5 


15 


7 


16 


;■■: 


12 


2 


14 


22 


5 7 


K 


4 7 


12 


H4 


9 


43 



29 



174 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



11 


7 


156 


45 


240 


111 



407 



163 



1 

12 

8 

21 









21 


78 


22 


qq 



4 3 



177 



85 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983 



District 9 

Frankl in 
Granvi lie 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 

District Totals 



Total 




Dispositions 


Judge 


60 


26 


5 3 


IS 


33 


10 


73 


;"i 


21 


in 



Jury 



Clerk 





Voluntary 






Dismissal 


Other 


1 


31 


2 


1 


.':•; 


1 


1 


21 


1 


6 


44 


2 


i 


7 


1 



240 



85 



12 



131 



District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 
Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 

Caswell 

Pockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 

S u r r ! 

Di stri ct Totals 



1,409 



706 



128 


42 


292 


101 


87 


25 



507 



355 

10 

365 



52 

73 

107 

232 



484 



165 



51 
145 

196 



142 
34 

176 



21 
158 

179 



36 

143 

179 



168 



91 
1 



18 
59 

34 

91 



160 

52 

12 
48 

60 



62 
L4 

76 



50 
58 



1/ 
58 

75 



62 



18 

21 

48 



20 


2n 



2 


11 

1 '. 



38 



77 



517 



-1 
15 

19 



12 
2 

14 



') 

10 

19 



5 


62 


83 


86 


8 


-14 



'II, 



15 


15 



15 



65 



24 



6 
7 

i ■; 



6 

4 

10 



I 

18 
22 



3 
27 

30 



192 



228 
1 

229 



4 


27 


4 


20 


7 


51 



107 



205 



;:[) 



12 
73 

85 



49 
14 

6 3 



76 



14 
58 

72 



47 



16 



17 
2 

19 



13 



13 



>:(, 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 18 
Guil ford 



Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



Total 
Dispositions 



Judge 



49 


i;' 


98 


;9 


82 


18 


58 


21 


158 


45 



Jury 



Greensboro 
High Point 


886 
208 


304 
58 


49 

16 


District Totals 


1,094 


362 


65 


District 19A 








Cabarrus 
Rowan 


139 

177 


42 
53 


16 


District Totals 


316 


95 


25 


District 19B 








Montgomery 
Randolph 


14 
132 


5 
62 


1 
11 


District Totals 


146 


67 


12 


District 20 









445 



155 



5 
•1 
2 
2 
! , 

L6 





Voluntary 




rk 


Dismissal 


Other 


54 


454 


25 


26 


100 


8 


80 


554 


3i 


10 


78 





9 


97 


2 



14 



175 



8 

50 

58 



5 


27 


6 


48 


11 


18 


2 


32 


50 


79 



54 



204 




1 

1 3 
1 
1 

16 



District 21 
Forsyth 



695 



2 1 1 



5() 



54 



359 



21 



District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 
District 23 



Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 




District 


Totals 


District 


24 


Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 




District 


Totals 


District 


25 


Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 




District 


Totals 


District 


26 



20 
193 

46 
192 

451 



178 



Mecklenburg 



613 



1,944 



7 

/I 
10 
70 

158 



9 


5 


16 


7 


124 


44 


29 


6 



62 



35 


16 


22 


4 


25 


8 


68 


24 


22 


9 


172 


6 1 


149 


5 7 


151 


58 


313 


109 



224 



607 



fJ 

16 

1 

4 

21 





5 
6 

11 



16 

') 

13 

18 



110 



2 


11 





25 


76 


5 


3 


28 


4 


19 


80 


19 


49 


195 


28 


2 





2 


1 


7 


1 


4 


70 


1 





16 


1 



2 
2 
2 

5 

(3 

11 



60 



150 



93 



i 

11 
12 
37 
11 

72 



165 



1,014 



16 

2 
2 



20 



15 


59 


2 


10 


2 3 


61 


35 


83 


73 



126 



63 



S7 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 27A 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 



Total 
Dispositions 



Judge 



Jury 



Gaston 


601 


205 


54 


District 27B 








Cleveland 


158 


'.'. 


6 


Lincoln 


67 


,Y> 


fi 


District Totals 


225 


81 


12 


District 28 








Buncombe 


589 


231 


(,', 


District 29 








Henderson 


109 


43 


'} 


Mc Dowel 1 


55 


26 





Polk 


19 


7 





Rutherford 


73 


18 


12 


Transyl vania 


46 


21 


1 


District Totals 


302 


115 


17 


District 30 









38 


?i\ 


1 


17 


1 


i 


13 


3 


2 


79 


38 





7;: 


47 


1 


-;f, 


12 





33 


12 


4 



Clerk 



IK 



11 
8 

19 

■V, 



16 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



320 



79 

?6 

105 



233 



138 



Other 



15 



7 


53 


2 


3 


25 


1 





10 


2 


'1 


50 


9 


2 


20 


2 



16 



1 


7 


5 





s 


8 


1 


6 


1 


8 


30 


3 


? 


27 


1 





20 


4 


2 


14 


1 



294 



137 



11 



14 



109 



23 



State Totals 



14,677 



5,280 



899 



1,220 



6,656 



622 



^j- lo h- cr> cnj c\j lo 



O ro r-x. o «— • »— ' 



CO ro<d- oo ro 



lo p*- ro 



ro co «— • lo r-x 



^■^ocvjinNCft «— « 



cm ro co co co 


CO 


c\j cr. 


«— t i—* 


ro 


«5f ro 



O CO CNJ LO LO 



.5 W 

o 



o <^r «=r lo f— i cnj «xt 



Lf) LO CM «t ■ 



00 LO CO CTi 



iXi ix ro 



OON<* LO 



<M LO MD i£i O Oi •* 



NCOOH LO 



r-x. «— i lo «=f oo 



«d- ^t- «a- -x* 



cr> lo •— ' «d- *d- r^ CO ON 



LO CM O CM LO LO 



' r-x. cnj cnj 



cr. ro ^j- co 



LO O LO 



cti n ro n 



OC 
i 

00 

o 



o s 

w u. 

X 

O 

5 
w 

en 
w 

H 
Z 



ox 
C 

Im 

3 
0! 

o 
a. 



4) ■< 



OLDLOLOLnOLD LD 

lo ■=}- <3- o lt> 00 CO r-~ 

c\j *d- ■=}• co csj •— I 00 co 

•— < C\J CNJ CNJ CO CNJ C\J CNJ 



CNJ CNJ LT> »— IOWIO CO 

oo^-crtovjp^coro o 

oo o m «3- i — rx co *3- 

f^ o> ^f ^t ^ c\j ro -^j- 



o> 

2 o 

O Q. 

H .3 

a 



cm rx. lo lo »— i cnj ir> on 



lo lo <^j- on «^- cr. r-x. 



O o o o o 

ro lo o CO ro 
lo ro o CNJ CNJ 
cnj ro ro cnj ro 



O lo lo cm co oo 

CMOlT) MD LO 

O lo lo r^ cnj ro 

lo «3- "53" cnj ro «3- 



«— i *d- «— i cr. ro co 



ro cnj lo •— i < 



lo cnj r-. t— I LO 



o o o o LO 

ro lo i— t o lo 

ro ^t o LO LO 

ro cnj ro cnj cnj 



lo cnj t— < I--. 
CO i— I ^J" ro 
ro ro ro ro 



cr. ro o cnj 



lo O O O 

CO rori^- 
ro lo »— ' ro 
cnj ro ro cm 



O O LO LO 

LD ^ O xt 
ro LO CNJ «-h 



i— I «cf M LO CNJ 



O CNJ 
«3" CO 
ro r-x 



O C O O O 

cr. lo lo ro cnj 

HHHLf) i— I 

ro ro cnj cnj ro 

uo CO cnj lo «=r 

ro «— i ro on cr. 

cnj CO r- ro *3- 

ro ro cnj ^ ro 



ro ro i— < lo ro 



C/3 M 

W < 

*% W 

W OO 

> ^ 

& s 

O £ 

w I 






O CTi ro cnj cnj CO lo 



.£ im 



*-* LO 



i— < Cnj LO 00 ro «— * 00 CO 



cnj ro co oo o tn r-x 



o o LO o LO o o 

LO ^ 00 •— I CNJ LO LO 

OOCO^DCOlNvt 
lo ro <— i cnj ro i— i cnj 



r-x-COLOOCOLOLO *3- 

r-H .— I CNJ CM LO CM t— I r-x 

«^r cm co cm on ro ro cr. 

lo rv ro «st ro c\j oo ro 



o r-x cr. ro lo lo 



LO H ro «-H <zf 



cnj lo 00 •— i O r- 



O o O O O 
O ro cnj CO lo 
cnj cnj cnj cnj •— 1 



CNJ LO O CTi LO "^j- 

O xj- LO lo ro o 

CO «xt r-x. cnj r-x. i— i 

cnj ro ro «^f- cnj ro 



O LO o o 



ro CO -^ O 
cr. cnj co •— i 

CNJ CNJ t— I CNJ 



I ro CNJ CNJ 



COLflON 
HOMCO 

ro ro cnj cnj 



CNJ CNJ cr> CNJ LO 



O O O LO o 

t- i O LO LO O 

CO «5T *d" CNJ -=J- 

CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ 



CO NN CM LO 

CM CON O LO 

O ro lo «— i lo 

«^r "=3- ro ro ro 



O ro ro 



ro lo 
h-- ro 
CM lo 



cnj ro 
ro lo 
ro lo 



N rH IN LO 



o o o o 

HNCOO 
O LO CM <* 

i- 1 ro cnj cnj 



Ot CNJ CNJ O". LO 

CO O O «3- CO 

■* O 't n ro 

ro lo »^- ro x^- 



"5.S 



^-i ro 







u 






IO 


m 






=5 






-t-" 


F 


c 


<r 


4-> 






"■ 




a; 


m 






CO 


-■> 


75 


'.' 


* 


'- 


a> 


m 


CT 


o 


^ 


i > 


S_ 


i- 


4J 


t/1 


S- 


ro 


c 


J 


m 


ro 


<n 


n> 


(_> 


e_> 


(_! 


i j 


CJ 


D- 


a. 



C r— C 

•^ <D -r- 



73 O C T3 

QTOin 



3 e 

■Z. D- 



-O CL 

x s- E 

CJ 1) O n: 
•r- M- M- -C 
+->•!- 4-> +J 

S_ r— i_ i_ 

a aj cu o 
muz 



89 



ID «3" CTi CTt 



lO O in 



in <n •-< ■— i co 



NO CM 



LD O «t CNJ ID 



O C\J CO 



oinN c\j 



o — 

< 



cm in n in rj 



CDCOCDI^m 



mis CNJ 



^" C\J ID CM 



no 00 CO en 



I 

(N 

X 

H S3 

O 2 
U ■- 

£ .= 

a ? 

ft- £ 

3 5. 
c/3 .a 

H 1 
Z c 

W < 

< £ 



.2 *> 

± < 



in in in in 

^j- no in CO 

N ID id in 

.— i no c\J CM 



no en in 
in no co 
cm <a- no 



o <3- m o 

OMn o in 
t-h ■— i no 



no cm n~ c\j 

i— I CM 



r» t— i i 



o o in in 

■—i co no oi 

en r^ t— < cr> 

no cm no cm 



r- >a- in 
m •— < in 
no no no 



i in o 
i in «a- 

i—i CM 



cd <z> o <z> <z> in 

■3- <a- cm •-> co co 

cm en i— i no en ■— i 

no no cm cm cm no 



co in in co O r-» 

HNOro<t co 

^lOCM"*"J ■— I 

in >^- no no ^t- «=t 



' ^3- in =3- in en 



co <a- >-i en >a- m 



co in in cm in m 



kO m ^j- 


i— i 


LO CD 


cr> t— i r-» 


lo 


CJ >X) 



CO LO <* 

r^ oo «y- 

OJHfO 



CO LO i— l CO 



LO O LO 



LO O LO 



LO CO OO 



LO O O LO 

mOH rfr 

lo r**» cnj oo 

t— i co <=j- co 



CTi ro lo vo 

r^ o o lo 

<^ C\J LO CTi 

c\j *d- «=f ro 



O O «-■ «-i 



MM 


r'i 









o 


CM «3" 


> 


c 


'- 






CM 


CM CM 




ex 


CI 
< 




3 






'- 


■a 








CM 


r»- co 





£ 






3 


ro 


c ; — i 




it 

s 




^ 




O 


O O 


CJ 


sj 






'- 


CJ 


ro ^t 


< 


'— 




'- 


< 




i-h CM 
CM CM 



inO^tHfO ro 



o *3- «d- r-» r-» cm 



o o o o LO 

lo c\j CTi r-- lo 

co r-- «d- lo i— « 
ro co <d- *— < (xi 



r*- cnj cr> 



LO o o LO 



«=J- P-- LO LO 



ro rv lt) 
IX) CO CTi 
i— I CO Cvj 



r-^ i— ■ **r no 
<— « -^r •— « cri 
cm co co cnj 



a-, co co lo 

CO CO CNJ CO 
CNJ CNJ CO CJ 



«3- O CNJ CO CNJ LO 

CNJ O LO LO O <=j" 

OO <st CO CO CTi LO 

<d- CO «3- CNJ CO co 



CJ LO i— 1 CO 
CO H CNJ LO 



a~> cn i—i 

ro co cj 

CJ «3- CJ 

CO CJ co 



CNJ CT) LO 

o lo o> 

CNJ CO CO 





- 


co 'jo cr 




■o 


OD •— ' en 








- 







LO CO LO CT. 

i— < co r-- cj 

.-H .—I co 



0) jr </> 

T3 (Ct 



o c: 

0J fO 



C C lh U i- 
T3 fT3 S- C S- 
1- i- dt T3 (T3 

LLt3CL>^ 



m o ai o 



■ -r- U 



•r- Z3 
S -Q 

CD in E 

TO 3 .— 
.— t- O 

CQ CQ U 



90 



Old lo 



*fr «tf- CO 



CSJ *d" LO 



r-. «— < CO 



LO LO CM 



2 so 

Q 2 



CO P-- LO 



O n 



r^ CO lo 



"3- CO CM 



CO O CO 



oo ro csi 



r^ LD CM 



3© 
i 

00 

en 2 
H S3 

O 3 

Q£ WD 

O •= 

« 3 

« O 

P g. 

w Q 

^2 1/5 

H £ 



CO 


BJj 


W 


< 


en 


XI 


< 


c 

S3 


u 


3C 


J 


o 


>— ■ 


(*) 


> 


NO 






u 


at 

c 



Li- ' 

O (2 

CO S 

w 1 

k 

5X 



2 Si 



_ «* 

2 S 

O Q. 

H .2 



c J, 



S& 



OX 

■3.S 

s * 



O O LO 



«d" CM 


ro 


ro o 


'4 


^1- CM 


CO 


u-> O 


"3" CM 


CTi 


r-< CO 


ON 


Cn CD 


CD 


CD o 


CM ro 


CM 


ro cm 


CM 


CM CM 


CM 


CM CM 



CT> C\J LO 



yDN co 



CT^ r-^ UD 



lo *3- lo 



iHfn ^j- 



LO <3" CTi 



lo co (Ti 



O LO LO 



CX> LO CTt 



CO C\J LO 



CSJ H CO 



CTi CO C\J 



«x> lo CO 



■3- LO 
CD CM 

CM ro 


o 
ro 


•—I CM 
CD CO 

ro ro 


LO 

CD 
CO 


CD r^ 
^3- CM 


O 

o 

ro 


CO O 
on ro 

CM CM 


<— 1 LO 


CD 

oo 


CM "3" 

•3- ro 


CO 


•-< co 

CM LO 


CT. 


CD CO 

ro ^r- 



^ CO CSJ 



LO LO •—* 



o o 


o 


o o 


O 


O O 


O 


O LO 


CO CD 
CO i-l 
CM CM 


ON 

ro 

CM 


*3" CM 

CO ro 

CM CM 


CO 
I — 

CM 


^J- CM 
CM ■— 1 
ro CM 


CM 
CM 


LO CD 
LD r^ 


*3 LD 


CD 


ro on 


ro 


O r-» 


CO 


CO «3- 


r^. cd 
lo r-~ 

CM CM 


CM 

CM 


CO CD 
*—* LD 

ro ro 


CM 
CM 
ro 


en «a- 

CO CM 
CM CM 


CO 
CM 
CM 


LTl O 
r-H CM 



t— l CO 



LO LO LO 



CO i— « 


i-H 


LO O 


<X> 


CNJ CO 


r~- cr> 


^J- 


CO CO 


r-- 


LO «3" 


«d" CNJ 


«tf 


Kt CO 


ro 


CO CO 



CSJO Ol 



LO CO 

CO o 

CO CnJ 



CSJ C\J LO 



CO CSJ LO 



LO LO 
O CO 

lo ty- 



O CO CO 



csj <cr lo 



i-H CO VJO 



o o LO O LO 

en en CSJ LO CO 
«-H CSJ ^t CO LO 
LO *3" LO CO CO 



lo r-v roevj h- o 

*3- lo r^-. csj csj csj 

CO LO CO CO CO O 

LO LO LO LO CO LO 



<T> CO CSJ CO CO LO 
^J" CTt CO LO LO «3" 



^H «-H CO ^H CO 



■^ ^3- t-H r^ «tf- 



lo csj <j> vo r-* 



H rHC\J CO 



O LT) 


O 


o 


O 


O 


O lo 


m 


uo 


o 


LO 


O 


uo 


uo 


CM CT> 
<T> CM 

ro ro 


CT. 
ro 


ro 


o. 
«— 1 


^3- 

in 
CM 


CO ^-i 
CM LO 

■=r ro 


CM 

CD 
ro 


CM 


CM 


ro 

LD 


CM 

ro 


cn 
uo 
CM 


oo 
ro 


en r^ 


CM 


CO 


>3 


Ol 


CD LO 


CO 


IT 


CO 


LO 


^, 


uo 


*ar 


•-I o 
CTi CT\ 

^J- ro 


■.T 


CO 

o . 

<* 


-— 1 
CM 


CM 
ro 


CM CO 
CD CTi 
^- CO 


LD 

O 


LO 

o 

LO 


LO 

CO 

"3 


CO 
CM 
r- 


en 

LO 


ro 

ro 


o 

Ti- 


ro o 


ro 


LO 

«3- 


CO 
CM 




O CO 
CM LO 


CO 


CO 
CD 




•=T 

CT. 


03 
Ol 


CD 

ro 


er. 

CM 



_C- 1- 

o o 



JD O 

o o 

cr: to 



CU •■- 4-> 



O) >> 

^ s- 

O 1- 
OO OO 



-O O t- 



■I— 1/1 



CD 03 

-O 3 

fTJ O 

t_> cv: 



s_ 

CD -C 
E Q. 
o .— 
en o 
+-> "O 



CO O U CD *i- 

C O -r- 4-> C 
OICCU1D 



91 



*— < LO CD CO 



o «— < en ■— < *-* 



CD CD <D> CD en en 



cm o CM 



lo co en lo to 



HON CO LO 



VDOMNiX) 



MOOO LO 
LO LO «— < *— 1 

*— < CM 



r» lo en 



to ^J- c\j en CO co 







j 








« 








~ 


oc 














c 


__ 






£ 


o» 






w 








< 


5» 




rr 




3 




3C 








r^l 








1C 




c 


y: 


c 




.2 ^ 




- 




r 


- 


,x 




= », 


u 


sq 
— 




2 Si 


tt 


C 






o 




2 o 


HM 


= 




H .2 


a: 


-^ 




a 


u 


— 






a. 


j- 






- 




a 






y; 


* 






a 


5 




e 


= 

- 


3J 
■r 
« 

w 







xj- to ^3- en 



co r-x en oo 



lo o o o o 

en CO Cn O CO 

CM "3- CO CO «— < 

>— l C\J CM i— l CM 



tiOnO Cn 

>— < O en cn co 

fOO^DM tD 

CM ro CM CM C\J 



O en LO LO 



*-H CM 



o lo o o 

^3" tO CO O 

O C\J to LO 

CM CM xj- CM 



HCOCO^ o 

^J-IDCSJH ^j- 

r-t en cm en r-x 

cm cm «=j- cm en 



O CO O i-i 



to xj- to to «— * ro 



r-» «3" LO CM ^t 



,— i co 



O O O O LO 

co lo cm r^ to 

CD LO <— ' O CM 

cm co cm cm ro 



CM LO CO CO «3" CO 

r-- CO «xt LO r-t Kt 

CM CM O ^J" CO tO 

CM CO CM CM CO CM 



i-h cm co r-x co «o 



r-x co o 

LO CNJ rj- 

co co ro 



o-ioin co 

en cm to co 

cm en lo co 

«d- CO CO CO 



CD CD O 

<d- r-x CO 

LO *-* CM 

CM CM CM 

o to to 



co o en 



i en to o to 



to cm «d- lo cm en 



y. 


- 

iX 


_ 


■e 


w 


< 


tj 




y. 

< 


99 


U 

E 




U 


3C 


■0 
E 


a: 


- 


S 


a. 




— 


". 


^r 


a 


> 


•= 


c 




u 


ZL 


*- 


<? 


'- 


•z 




= 


c 


V 




<r 


y 


s 






H 


/■ 




= 


w 


w 




.2 «. 
-o « 


«< 


'- 




4/ < 



en ^j- co cn 



o o LO o 



lo r-x en to 
cm en o en 

•HHOJH 



LO CM xj- O i—1 



ro «^- O <3- 



LO LO O LO 

CM r- CO LO 

CO -3- CM <^f 

•— • cm ro CM 



i— I LO LO r-x tO LO 



CM tO LO CO «xt- 



lo i— i en to cm 



O O LO o o 

to en en r-x o 
x3- to co «=t «3- 

f-H CM f— I CM CM 



CM xj- CM tO 
CM «— I •— ' tO 
CO CO CM CM 



LO O LO 



rr^-^o en 

lo cm en CM o 

tO LO to to LO 

«-* CM cm cm cm 



n ro^ q- 



x^- o CO o 
r-x. co x^- lo 

r— i CO ro CM 



tO LO CO t— I t—i (O 

lo ro en ro en »^- 

x^- en xj- en xj- en 

CM CM CO CM ro CM 



COCnJtH CO 

co to lo ro 

^j- CO CM CO 



CO o 
xtf- CO 



— o — 



< O CD — 



Q) 


aj j^. 


^r 


'/i 




JZ r— 








tSi '1- 


ai 


I . 


'-■ 


cC 2: 


>- 





C i — ro 

o aj oi >i 

>> iyi _c 3 aj 

S_ -r- o ro o 

dJ TJ +J +J C 

> ro -r- ro ro 

ct Z Z 3 ^ 



i — ro *r- 

<U S 3 ■*-> 

^ "D rd (/I 

S— I +J ■!- 

3 ro ro O 
OD <_) U 






92 



O vc 



r^ cri ro tx) ^j- cri 



mm ^ c\j n en 



fori^j iDHmN <xt 



lOtCLDMlT) LO 



in^o^Dini^co en 



90 
rs 

00 

P £ 

o s 

w u. 

o •= 

£ Q 

P s. 

w Q 

H 3 
Z o 



W < 

in ■« 

w 00 



o 
r*i 

•O 

ex 

C 



> 

G 

o £ 

w i 

< * 



O O O O LO 

ro *3- in cr» ct- 
Ln ro ro ro c\J 



vo «— i CO CO <=f O 
r^- o*i ro cr> Ln co 
lo «cr ^j- «^- ro *a- 



_ 4» 

2 S 



MLfUDO 1 



O n nron lo 



c ^ 



.2 4* 



N CM C\J CO CsJ 



O CTt m CM O LO 



Ln o o o o 
r**- c\j ld ro co 

NOrHr-tO, 

ro cnj ro ro i— i 



NMHCVJN 

oroincON 
•3- ro <^t- ro cm 



LO CM '-< O CM «— < LO CO 



O O O O O Ln o 

CO LO LO r-t CM CO *3" 

N^coomcocM 
cm cxi «3- ro U} CM CM 



n omd o o c\j n Ln 

cm r^ CO *j- ^3- lo cm en 

«*c\joc^^n h r-- 

^j-^j-LnroLoro^j- «a- 



ro i— < c\j o> in o c\j 



^r o cm ro t— i lo Ln 



Ln Ln o in o o Ln 



r-- o cm ^ ro cm o 
*d~ in cm ro o LO Cn 

rO CM ^J" 0O LO CM CO 



r^-or^co^j-LOO •— < 

cm co ro o~i -— ( ro in «— « 

CM O UD O CO CO r- 1 CO 

^ ro n <^- in -^ lo ^f 



CQi — -t- 1 <T3 •<— i/l 

cu U O 3 S- O -I— 



OJ 



: O O 



_ O -. 

(U 13 (O >>U U (D 
r r- S- HJ ^3 m j 

uuoioZin 



93 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 

1974-83 



ESTATE CASES 



I 

II 


r 
s 
\ 
\ 
D 
s 





1 



c 

s 

I 

s 



60 



40 



2d 




Dispositions 



i i i i i r t t i i 

74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 



SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES 



I 

II 

I 

s 

\ 
\ 

D 

s 



F 



4(1 



30 



20 



Filings 




[ nd Pending 



1 1 1 1 1 i i i r^ 

74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 



During 1982-83, estate caseloads continued the estab- 
lished increasing trend of the past. Special proceedings 
filings increased by only .59? over 198 1-82 filings; disposi- 
tions increased by 4.09? during the year and exceeded 



filings for the first time since 1978. This difference is 
reflected in the decrease in pending cases at the end of the 
1982-83 year. 



94 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


District 1 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


Camden 


40 


61 


10 1 


50 


58 


4 


42 


19 


20 


39 


23 


58. 


9 


16 


Chowan 


1H4 


116 


300 


102 


34. 





198 


97 


60 


167 


60 


38. 


2 


9/ 


Currituck 


111 


99 


210 


88 


41. 


9 


122 


52 


77 


189 


6/ 


51. 


9 


62 


Dare 


493 


166 


650 


111 


16. 


8 


640 


112 


104 


216 


92 


42. 


,5 


124 


Gates 


60 


77 


137 


66 


40 


.8 


81 


17 


26 


43 


32 


74. 


4 


11 


Pasquotank 


247 


240 


48 7 


226 


40, 


2 


262 


85 


116 


201 


114 


56. 


7 


87 


Perquimans 


163 


74 


2 17 


68 


28. 


6 


169 


■:o 


36 


75 


31 


41 


.3 


■11 


District Totals 


1,298 


833 


2,131 


709 


33. 


,2 


1,422 


421 


439 


860 


n 19 


48. 


7 


441 


District 2 






























Beaufort 


46 3 


415 


06;; 


642 


62 


4 


326 


5/2 


164 


5 36 


148 


26 


6 


39 3 


Hyde 


58 


128 


L86 


122 


65. 


,5 


64 


34 


4/ 


81 


56 


43 


2 


46 


Martin 


245 


199 


444 


L61 


36, 


,2 


28 3 


111 


12/ 


238 


93 


39 


,0 


14 5 


Tyrrel 1 


37 


26 


63 


31 


49. 


2 


32 


10 


16 


25 


14 


56 


.0 


11 


Washington 


133 


88 


221 


112 


50. 


,6 


109 


6/ 


84 


161 


82 


54 


,3 


69 


District Totals 


926 


856 


1,782 


968 


54. 


,3 


814 


694 


437 


1,031 


36 7 


35 


.5 


664 


District 3 






























Carteret 


388 


326 


/14 


324 


45. 


.3 


390 


126 


171 


296 


165 


55 


,7 


131 


Craven 


490 


372 


862 


m 


45 


.2 


478 


167 


281 


44 8 


251 


56 


.0 


197 


Pamlico 


83 


88 


171 


6,0 


40, 


.3 


102 


53 


36 


89 


59 


68 


8 


30 


Pitt 


628 


699 


1,227 


554 


45 


,1 


67 3 


141 


514 


655 


488 


74 


.5 


167 


District Totals 


1,589 


1,385 


2,974 


1,337 


44 


.9 


1,637 


4,86 


1,002 


1,488 


Of, ! 


64 


.7 


585 


District 4 






























Dupl in 


464 


359 


82 3 


310 


37, 


.6 


513 


435 


260 


606 


328 


47, 


.8 


36/ 


Jones 


70 


1 02 


1/2 


79 


45, 


,9 


93 


70 


45 


115 


48 


36. 


5 


73 


Onslow 


467 


294 


761 


280 


36, 


7 


481 


382 


510 


892 


6 /o 


64 


5 


316 


Sampson 


451 


375 


828 


335 


40, 


,4 


4 0-; 


149 


2 74 


423 


224 


62 


9 


199 


District Totals 


1,454 


1,130 


2,584 


1,004 


38 


,8 


1,580 


1,026 


1,089 


2,115 


1,170 


55 


.3 


945 


District 5 






























New Hanover 


1,270 


7 31 


2,001 


7 39 


36 


.9 


1,262 


213 


769 


982 


716 


72 


.8 


26 7 


Pender 


201 


171 


372 


144 


38, 


7 


228 


117 


104 


221 


1 


41 


1 


130 


District Totals 


1,471 


9i 12 


2,373 


883 


87 


,2 


1,490 


8 30 


87 5 


1,203 


806 


66 


.9 


59 7 


District 6 






























Bertie 


185 


1 36 


321 


129 


40 


.1 


10/ 


70 


7 3 


1 62 


69 


45 


.3 


8 3 


Halifax 


615 


398 


1,013 


318 


31 


,3 


095 


4 70 


296 


7/4 


337 


4 3 


.5 


4 37 


Hertford 


1/4 


172 


346 


16 3 


47 


1 


183 


91 


95 


186 


00 


48, 


,3 


96 


Northampton 


182 


172 


•164 


180 


50 


.8 


1/4 


75 


105 


180 


114 


63 


.3 


66 


District Totals 


1,156 


878 


2,034 


790 


38, 


,8 


1,244 


723 


5 09 


1,292 


610 


47 


,2 


682 


District 7 






























Edgecombe 


407 


473 


880 


503 


57, 


.1 


37/ 


221 


256 


4 76 


230 


48 


.3 


246 


Nash 


553 


387 


940 


400 


43 


.5 


531 


228 


297 


525 


226 


4 5 


.0 


299 


Wilson 


651 


456 


1,107 


395 


35 


.6 


712 


348 


507 


065 


266 


40 


6 


589 


District Totals 


1,611 


1,316 


2,927 


1,307 


,14 


.6 


1,620 


70/ 


859 


1,656 


728 


43, 


.5 


9 34 


District 8 






























Greene 


11/ 


15 3 


2 70 


1/1 


6 3 


.3 


99 


70 


73 


14 8 


77 


53 


.8 


66 


Lenoir 


365 


494 


859 


464 


64 


.0 


395 


242 


45 7 


699 


5 72 


76 


.1 


167 


Wayne 


948 


679 


1,627 


62 3 


38 


,2 


1,004 


4 62 


766 


1,218 


828 


67 


.9 


790 


District Totals 


1,4 30 


1,326 


2,756 


1,258 


45 


.6 


1,498 


774 


1,286 


2,060 


1,437 


69 


.7 


623 


District 9 






























Frankl in 


400 


178 


6/8 


186 


32 


.0 


39 5 


230 


157 


5,8/ 


102 


4 7 


.0 


205 


Granville 


2 34 


2 35 


460 


3 30 


49 


.0 


239 


48 


85^ 


402 


346 


86 


.0 


66 


Person 


242 


219 


461 


2 36 


5; 


.1 


225 


92 


144 


2 36 


133 


55 


.9 


104 


Vance 


367 


268 


o !5 


264 


40 


.0 


381 


16 1 


14 1 


292 


141 


48 


.2 


161 


Warren 


224 


164 


388 


194 


50 


.0 


0)4 


78 


96 


1/4 


93 


63 


.4 


81 



District Totals 



1,467 



1,064 2,531 



1,099 



43.4 1,432 



609 



808 



1,491 



804 



59.9 



69 7 



95 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 



District 10 


Pending 

7 i s: 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/83 


Pending 

7/1/82 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/83 


Wake 


3,104 


1,473 


4,577 


1,248 


27.2 


3,329 


1,159 


1,386 


2,545 


1,317 


51.7 


1,228 


District 11 


























Harnett 
Johnston 

Lee 


5:5 
681 

4-: 


427 
495 
219 


952 

1,176 

696 


426 
698 
2 1 3 


44.7 
59.3 
30.6 


526 

478 
483 


383 
150 
329 


245 
550 
183 


497 
700 
512 


263 
537 
L90 


52.9 
76.7 
37.1 


234 
163 
322 


District Totals 


1,683 


1,141 


2,824 


1,337 


47.3 


1,487 


731 


978 


1,709 


990 


57.9 


718 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


761 
112 


813 

88 


1,574 
194 


788 
99 


48.2 
51.0 


814 

'18 


507 
61 


1,193 
87 


1,700 
148 


1,116 
87 


65.6 
58.7 


584 
61 


District Totals 


87? 


895 


1,768 


859 


48.5 


')[)•> 


568 


1,280 


1,848 


1,203 


65.0 


848 


District 13 


























Bladen 

Brunswick 
Col umbus 


131 
310 

388 


137 
305 
38 7 


268 
615 

718 


1 30 
223 


48.5 
36.2 
42.7 


13M 
■!'I8 


57 
186 
444 


211 
246 
251 


268 
4 38 
695 


209 

248 
221 


77.9 
57.4 
31.7 


59 
184 
474 


District Totals 


82 9 


769 


1,598 


659 


41.2 


<nn 


687 


708 


1,395 


678 


48.6 


717 


District 14 



























Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



' tokes 

District Totals 
District 18 



1,623 



8 74 



331 

7 78 
1,110 



1,108 



701 



235 

488 

84 3 



2,731 



1,375 



566 
1,237 

1,803 



1,024 



652 



888 
346 

598 



37.4 1,707 



47.4 



44.5 
27.9 



723 



314 



080 



810 



1,070 1,299 



31 I 



!?\ 



1,017 



497 



33.1 1,205 



88(. 



734 



1,360 



599 



208 


20 : 


811 


801 


48.9 


810 


38/ 


429 


956 


4')/ 


51.9 


488 



735 



3 38 



1,367 



698 



51.0 



66'J 



Guilford 


2,978 


2,195 


5,173 


2,125 


41.0 


3,048 


District 19A 














'■"'jit'-i^ 


814 
1,035 


617 

811 


1,431 
1,846 


(81 3 

893 


44.2 
48.3 


'8, i 


District Totals 


1,849 


1,428 


3,277 


1,526 


46.5 


1,751 


District 19B 














-,:ph 


161 

3.8'! 


178 

34 i 


344 
1,212 


172 

(44 


50.0 
53.1 


1/,' 
568 


ict Totals 


735 


'".8 1 


1,556 


816 


52.4 


740 



880 



928 



33/ 



1,915 



/// 



538 



2,843 2,070 



78.2 



S.9 



44.0 



69.2 



72.8 



282 



224 



130 


148 


278 


110 


42.8 


153 


496 


586 


1,082 


480 


44.3 


602 



761 



Robeson 


499 


680 


1,119 


544 


48.6 


575 


227 


472 


600 


408 


57.5 


297 


Scotland 


3 v 


199 


491 


8 38 


48.0 


833 


165 


143 


307 


116 


37.7 


191 


District Totals 


701 




1,610 


780 


48.4 


830 


','>:• 


614 


1,006 


518 


51.4 


488 


District 17A 


























Caswel 1 


142 


181 


273 


1 n 


47.9 


142 


117 


85 


202 


144 


71.2 


58 


Rockingham 


73;-. 


3 70 


1,528 


304 


38.8 


<M4 


3 8, 


375 


910 


512 


56.2 


J98 


District Totals 


900 


901 


1,801 


725 


40.2 


1,076 


652 


460 


1,112 


656 


58.9 


456 


District 17B 



























55 


L67 


','-,",' 


152 


68.4 


70 


65 


390 


333 


386 


69.5 


160 



239 



773 



300 


408 


673 


420 


62.4 


83 3 


338 


898 


1,236 


964 


77.9 


272 


603 


1,306 


1,909 


1,384 


72.4 


38 3 


216 


190 


406 


285 


70.1 


181 


814 


367 


581 


450 


77.4 


131 



4 10 



33/ 



987 



735 



74.4 



252 



96 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


District 20 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


Anson 


446 


137 


583 


10/ 


18.3 


476 


143 


82 


225 


88 


39.1 


137 


Moore 


835 


492 


1,327 


579 


43.6 


748 


155 


250 


405 


281 


69.3 


124 


Richmond 


805 


29 1 


1,098 


445 


40.5 


653 


411 


L69 


580 


8/4 


47.2 


306 


Stanly 


1,097 


364 


1,461 


607 


41.5 


854 


284 


19," 


4/6 


1/0 


35.7 


306 


Union 


604 


364 


968 


566 


58.4 


402 


309 


266 


575 


462 


80.3 


113 



District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 
District 23 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 



3,787 



2,031 



120 
74 3 
142 
6 76 

1,681 



1,650 



5,437 2,304 



1,572 3,603 1,580 



42.3 3,133 



43.8 2,023 



14 5 
704 
14 3 
631 



265 
1,447 

285 
1,307 



1,623 3,304 



128 
6 72 
145 
589 

1,534 



48.3 
46.4 
50.8 
45.0 



137 

775 

140 
718 



46.4 1,770 



1,302 



252 



!4 

8 38 

96 

160 

528 



959 



2,261 



1,324 1,576 



158 
412 

14 7 
413 



192 

650 
24 i 
57 3 



1,275 



1,275 



149 
477 

149 

388 



1,130 1,658 1,157 



716 

612 

1,115 



1,495 



4 30 
393 

659 



2,443 1,482 



1,146 
1,005 
1,774 

3,925 



3,469 2,658 6,127 



1,022 2,517 



39 7 
388 
600 

1,385 

2,643 

932 



34.6 
38.6 
33.8 



749 

617 

1,174 



35.2 2,540 



43.1 3,484 



37.0 1,585 



567 


552 


1,119 


482 


43.0 


637 


262 


265 


527 


256 


48.5 


271 



56.3 



1.9 



77.6 
73.3 
61.3 
66.6 

69.7 



986 



301 



43 

173 

94 

19] 

501 



Al leghany 




93 


73 


1 66 


73 


43.9 


93 


16 


56 


72 


61 


70.8 


21 


Ashe 




165 


15 3 


3 1 8 


156 


49.0 


162 


48 


120 


168 


86 


50.5 


83 


Wilkes 




3 34 


279 


613 


243 


39.6 


370 


406 


387 


79 3 


487 


61.4 


506 


Yadkin 




246 


210 


456 


177 


38.8 


2 79 


80 


137 


217 


142 


65.4 


76 


District 


Totals 


838 


715 


1,553 


649 


41.7 


904 


550 


700 


1,250 


765 


61.2 


486 


District 


24 


























Avery 




128 


79 


207 


81 


39.1 


126 


62 


107 


169 


93 


55.0 


76 


Madison 




170 


87 


25 7 


101 


39.2 


L56 


73 


53 


126 


65 


51.5 


61 


Mitchell 




418 


124 


542 


77 


14.2 


465 


55 


85 


140 


77 


55.0 


63 


Watauga 




245 


157 


402 


188 


31.8 


2 74 


148 


171 


319 


173 


54.2 


146 


Yancey 




181 


110 


261 


71 


27.2 


190 


67 


46 


113 


22 


19.4 


91 


District 


Totals 


1,112 


55 7 


1,669 


458 


27.4 


1,211 


406 


462 


867 


4 30 


49.5 


437 


District ; 


25 



























182 


486 


668 


481 


72.0 


187 


296 


386 


680 


606 


74.4 


174 


329 


443 


772 


565 


73.1 


20 7 


806 


1,314 


2,120 


1,552 


73.2 


568 


777 


2,202 


3,979 


1,907 


47.9 


2,072 


767 


763 


1,520 


76', 


50.1 


75 7 


161 


499 


660 


518 


78.4 


142 


97 


217 


314 


230 


73.2 


84 



829 



817 



1,646 



758 



44.8 



908 



258 



7 16 



974 



748 



76.7 



226 



District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 



1,996 



1,259 3,255 



1,178 



36.1 2,077 



795 



980 



1,775 



50.0 



88 7 



Henderson 


665 


548 


1 


,213 


521 


42.9 


692 


142 


26 7 


409 


251 


61.3 


168 


McDowell 


317 


220 




537 


167 


31.0 


370 


2 36 


165 


4511 


241 


60.0 


160 


Polk 


217 


166 




383 


163 


42.5 


720 


29 


74 


103 


79 


76.6 


24 


Rutherford 


422 


446 




868 


59/ 


45.7 


47] 


300 


294 


594 


264 


42.7 


340 


Transyl vania 


446 


200 




64 f, 


155 


23.9 


49] 


252 


11 ! 


if, 5 


72 


19.7 


89 3 


District Totals 


2,067 


1,580 


3 


,647 


1,403 


38.4 


2,244 


9 59 


913 


1,872 


897 


47.9 


9 75 



97 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July I, 1982 -June 30, 1983 











Estates 












Special Proceed 


ings 












Pending 




Total 






% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 






%C 


aseload 


Pe 


nding 


District 


30 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


• 




360 


160 


5 30 




><7 


17.6 


428 


76 


106 


182 




60 




32.9 




122 


CI a) 




44 


45 


89 




33 


37.0 


56 


15 


53 


68 




19 




57.3 




29 


j'-3"c~ 




7 3 


41 


114 




52 


45.6 


62 


35 


46 


71 




59 




83.0 




12 


Haywood 




4:0 


357 


777 




3 32 


42.7 


44 5 


183 


232 


415 




249 




60.0 




161, 






56] 


139 


500 




17 r - 


35.0 


v:<\ 


159 


124 


?.i\ i 




9] 




32.1 




1<)7 






399 


182 


581 




142 


24.4 


439 


284 


234 


5 1!', 




208 




40.1 




310 


Swain 




143 


63 


206 




78 


37.8 


128 


54 


f,5 


119 




51) 




42.0 




69 


District 


Totals 


1,800 


987 


2,787 




904 


32.4 


1,883 


796 


860 


1,656 




756 




45.6 




900 


1 '-:- Tot. 


lis 


53,834 


39,188 


93,022 


38 


,110 


40.9 


54,912 


22,380 


31,835 


54,215 


32 


,003 




59.0 


?:• 


,212 



98 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1973-1983 



80 



I 

II 
o 
I 

s 

A 

N 
D 

s 



O 

I 



c 

A 
S 

I 
S 



60 



40 



20 




Filings //^- 

7 

7 

. 7 

/ Disposition 



Hnding Pending 



73 74 



^s 



76 



77 



1 I I I I I 

78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 



Criminal superior case filings increased by 2.8% during 
1982-83, with an increase in dispositions of 4.4%. Trends 
among criminal cases in the superior courts are deter- 



mined largely by felony cases, which substantially out- 
number misdemeanor cases appealed to superior court. 



99 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I, 1982 — June 30, 1983 









Felonies 












Misdemi 


manors 










Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


District 1 






























Camden 


S 


2 3 


; 1 


27 


87. 





4 


19 


63 


82 


45 


54. 


8 


37 


Chowan 


26 


81 


107 


79 


73. 


8 


28 


48 


199 


247 


215 


87. 





32 


Currituck 


22 


jg 


61 


52 


90,. 


2 


9 


!1 




266 


235 


88. 


3 


31 


Dare 


28 


128 


156 


119 


75. 


6 


38 


98 


259 


357 


266 


74. 


5 


91 


Gates 


17 


17 


u 


30 


88. 


2 


4 


12 


42 


54 


43 


79. 


6 


11 


Pasquotank 


58 


173 


2 31 


189 


81. 


8 


42 


89, 


559 


(.44 


5 75 


89. 


2 


69 


Perquimans 


'3 


57 


66 


('■.(i 


'01. 


9 


6 


1/ 


n\ 


95 


73 


76. 


8 


22 


District Totals 


168 


518 


686 


855 


80. 


9 


131 


310 


1,435 


1,745 


1,452 


83. 


2 


293 


District 2 






























Beaufort 


81 


3 3 


519 


374 


72. 





145 


83 


261 


344 


24/ 


71. 


8 


9/ 


Hyde 


7 


191 


108 


56 


51. 


8, 


59 


34 


45 


79 


46 


58. 


2 


33 


Martin 


6 i 


12 ^ 


189 


[55 


82. 





74 


65 


112 


177 


164 


92. 


6 


13 


Tyrrel 1 


22 


25 


47 


47 


100. 








23 


69 


92 


70 


76. 





2? 


Washington 


54 


100 


154 


134 


87. 





20 


20 


59 


79 


02 


78. 


4 


17 


District Totals 


229 


788 


1,017 


766 


75. 


3 


251 


225 


546 


771 


589 


76. 


3 


182 


District 3 






























Carteret 


92 


269 


30 1 


300 


84 . 


7 


55 


11 


105 


110 


92 


79. 


3 


24 


Craven 


205 


481 


686 


Oil 


80) . 





75 


62 


914 


276 


240 


86. 


9 


36 


Pamlico 


34 


41 


75 


57 


76. 





18 


6 


29 


35 


26 


74. 


2 


9 


Pitt 


212 


720 


932 


750 


80. 


4 


182 


136 


487 


623 


504 


80. 


8 


119 


District Totals 


24 3 


1,511 


2,054 


1,724 


83. 


9 


330 


215 


835 


1,050 


862 


82. 





188 


District 4 






























Dupl in 


4 5 


377 


422 


346 


81. 


9 


76 


1 


27 


28: 


21 


75. 





7 


Jones 


3 


40 


47 


38 


80. 


,8 


9 


3 


6 


9 


9 


100. 








Onslow 


258 


1,243 


1,501 


1,165 


77, 


,6 


336 


28 


(9) 


11/ 


85 


72. 


6 


32 


Sampson 


124 


395 


519 


428 


82. 


4 


91 


6 


96 


108 


93 


91. 


,1 


9 


District Totals 


4 30 


2,059 


2,489 


1,977 


79. 


4 


512 


38 


218 


250 


208 


81. 


.2 


48 


District 5 






























New Hanover 


356 


1,481 


1,837 


1,520 


82. 


.7 


317 


189 


(8)5 


884 


825 


93 


.3 


59 


Pender 


05 


96 


161 


125 


77 


.6 


36 


36 


95 


131 


91 


69 


.4 


40 


District Totals 


421 


1,577 


1,998 


1,645 


82 


.3 


353 


925 


790 


1,015 


916 


90 


.2 


99 


District 6 






























Bertie 


5 7 


105 


L62 


136 


83 


.9 


26 


',4 


63 


97 


78 


80 


.4 


19 


Hal ifax 


112 


439 


551 


454 


8.2 


.3 


97 


90 


236 


326 


223 


68 


.4 


10 3 


Hertford 


44 


195 


2 35 


201 


8,4 


.1 


38 


44 


85 


129 


no 


85 


.2 


19 


Northampton 


10 


83 


99 


74 


74 


.7 


25 


19 


40 


55 


39 


66 


. 1 


20 


District Totals 


229 


822 


1,051 


865 


82 


.3 


1 86 


187 


494 


01 1 


450 


73 


.6 


10 1 


District 7 






























Edgecombe 


2 


312 


354 


298 


84 


.1 


56 


42 


952 


294 


260 


88 


.4 


34 


Nash 


117 


4 50 


573 


4'*/ 


.",0 


.7 


76 


66 


3D1 


367 


290 


79 


.0 


77 


Wi 1 son 


129 


500 


715 


599 


83 


.7 


L16 


96 


0(5 


431 


174 


86 


.7 


5 7 


District Totals 


288 


1,354 


1,642 


1,394 


,".4 


.8 


248 


204 


888 


1,092 


524 


84 


.6 


168 


District 8 






























Greene 


0/ 


1 16 


183 


166 


90 


.7 


17 


36 


61 


97 


89 


9 1 


.7 


8 


Lenoi r 


80 


278 


366 


307 


8; 


.8 


59 


169 


42 I 


592 


502 


84 


.7 


90 


Wayne 


9 20 


543 


767 


640 


83 


.4 


12/ 


113 


',(8) 


482 


395 


81 


.9 


87 


District Totals 


■■:■: 9 


95/ 


1,316 


1,113 


84 


.5 


203 


318 


853 


1,171 


986 


84 


.2 


185 


District 9 






























FranH in 


20 


166 


194 


147 


/5 


.7 


47 


44 


311 


355 


304 


85 


.6 


51 


Granvil le 


02 


229 


284 


203 


71 


.4 


81 


76 


168 


744 


173 


70 


.9 


71 


Person 


81 


252 


333 


288 


86 


.4 


45 


1 0) 


195 


314 


265 


84 


.3 


49 


/a n ce 


149 


235 


384 


272 


70 


.8 


112 


154 


2 11 


385 


303 


78 


.7 


82 


Wa rrer 


12 


75 


87 


42 


48 


.2 


45 


24 


113 


137 


76 


55 


.4 


1 



- ct Totals 



3 3 2 



950 



1,282 



552 



74.2 



i JO 



417 



1,018 



1,435 1,121 



78.1 



314 



I Of) 



District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



July 1,1982 — June 30, 1983 



Felonies 



Pending 

7/1/82 

1,223 



Filed 

3,263 



Total % Caseload Pending 

Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/83 

4,486 2,882 64.2 1,604 



35 308 

37 306 

144 344 



343 


276 


80.4 


67 


343 


303 


88.3 


40 


488 


4?7 


87.5 


61 







Misdemeanors 






Pending 

7/1/82 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/83 


459 


2,249 


2,708 


2,055 


75.8 


653 


14 

40 
37 


80 
225 

182 


94 
265 

219 


81 

209 

19? 


86.1 
78.8 
87.6 


13 
56 
27 



216 



958 



1,174 1,006 



85.6 



168 



384 


1,688 


2,072 


1,615 


77.9 


457 


28 


151 


179 


165 


92.1 


14 


412 


1,839 


2,251 


1,780 


79.0 


471 


83 


151 


2 34 


170 


72.6 


64 


163 


223 


386 


221 


57.2 


165 


85 


258 


34 3 


173 


50.4 


170 



91 



67 
19 

86 



487 



69 7 
54 

751 



678 



764 
73 

837 



482 



60 7 
63 

6 70 



46 


116 


50 


132 


66 


372 



331 



322 



234 



632 



1,512 



80S 



963 



564 



1,834 1,355 



1,039 



770 



58.5 



73.8 



74.1 



399 



479 



269 



162 



118 



198 



6/0 



',80 



465 



78? 



498 



66 3 



557 



358 



644 



83.3 



79.4 
86.3 

80.0 



71.2 



71.8 



82.0 



s>6 



157 
10 

167 



16? 


104 


64.1 


58 


182 


13? 


72.5 


50 


438 


3?1 


73.2 


117 



225 



140 



119 



Chatham 


50 


102 


15? 


138 


90.7 


14 


7 


34 


41 


38 


92.6 


3 


Orange 


63 


479 


542 


496 


91.5 


46 


1? 


8? 


94 


80 


85.1 


14 


District Totals 


113 


581 


694 


6 34 


91.3 


60 


19 


116 


135 


118 


87.4 


17 


District 16 


























Robeson 


221 


1,119 


1,340 


1,001 


74.7 


339 


65 


528 


593 


426 


71.8 


167 


Scotland 


141 


229 


370 


188 


50.8 


1 82 


97 


187 


284 


91 


32.0 


19 3 


District Totals 


362 


1,348 


1,710 


1,189 


69.5 


521 


16? 


716 


877 


517 


58.9 


360 


District 17A 


























Caswell 


45 


69 


114 


113 


99.1 


1 


14 


73 


87 


80 


91.9 


7 


Rockingham 


135 


846 


981 


816 


83.1 


165 


116 


664. 


7 79 


604 


77.5 


175 


District Totals 


180 


915 


1,095 


929 


84.8 


166 


129 


737 


866 


684 


78.9 


18? 


District 17B 


























Stokes 


38 


186 


?24 


156 


69.1 


69 


6? 


131 


193 


151 


78.2 


42 


Surry 


270 


439 


709 


574 


80.9 


1 35 


190 


576 


766 


656 


85.6 


110 


District Totals 


308 


625 


933 


729 


78.1 


204 


252 


70 7 


969 


807 


84.1 


15? 



District 18 

Guilford 
Greensboro 
High Point 

District Totals 
District 19A 



Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 



860 


2,362 


3,222 


2,307 


71.6 


916 


262 


877 


1,139 


806 


70.7 


333 



1,122 



3,239 



4,361 3,113 



71.3 



1,248 



117 
86 

203 



610 

?90 

900 



727 

3 76 

1,103 



545 
283 

828 



51 
211 

262 



188 
616 



239 
827 

1,066 



159 
481 

640 



66.5 
58.1 

60.0 



346 
426 



94 

166 

250 



242 

655 

897 



336 
811 

1,147 



221 

64 1 

762 



74.9 
75.2 

75.0 



65.7 
66.7 

66.4 



18? 
9 3 

?75 



Cabarrus 
Rowan 


126 

112 


704 
635 


830 
747 


557 
608 


67.1 
81.3 


273 

1 39 


231 

104 


731 
579 


962 
683 


671 

649 


69.7 
80.3 


291 

1 '.4 


District Totals 


238 


1,339 


1,577 


1,165 


73.8 


412 


335 


1,310 


1,645 


1,220 


74.1 


425 


District 19B 



























116 
270 

385 



101 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 






District 20 


Pending 

7/1/82 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/83 


Pending 

7/1/82 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/83 


Moore 
Richmond 
Stanly 
Union 


19 

153 

105 

71 

114 


444 
412 
609 
361 
445 


46 3 
565 

'14 
4 32 
^6Q 


302 
473 
663 
339 

52 7 


65.2 
83.7 
91.3 
78.4 
94.2 


li,l 
92 
62 
93 

52 


35 
OO 
6.] 

93 

1 6 7 


248 
368 
403 
386 
625 


273 

428 
46/ 
479 
782 


231 
347 
375 
385 
737 


84.6 
81.0 
82.0 
80.3 
94.2 


42 

81 

82 

94 
45 


District Total s 


462 


2,271 


2,733 


2,293 


83.9 


44 


389 


2,030 


2,419 


2,075 


85.7 


344 


District 21 


























Forsyth 


259 


1,936 


2,195 


1,682 


76.6 


513 


288 


1,858 


2,146 


1,652 


76.9 


494 


District 22 


























Alexander 
Davidson 

Davie 
Iredell 


55 

63 

21 

235 


65 

441 

52 

402 


120 

504 

7 3 

6 37 


112 
i 35 

62 

498 


93.3 
66.4 
84.9 
78.1 


8 

169 

11 

139 


20 
37 
55 
91 


135 

517 

94 

545 


155 
554 
129 
636 


14 1 

437 

100 
539 


90.9 
78.8 
77.5 
84.7 


14 

117 
79 
Q7 


District Totals 


3^4 


960 


1,334 


1,007 


75.4 


327 


183 


1,291 


1,474 


1,217 


82.5 


257 


District 23 


























Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wi 1 kes 
Yadkin 


10 

46 

126 

68 


12 

55 
129 

74 


32 
101 
255 

142 


16 

66 
184 
110 


72.7 
65.3 
72.1 
77.4 


6 

36 
71 
32 


12 

41 

153 

54 


35 

99 

415 
119 


47 

140 
668 
1/3 


43 
83 

417 
127 


91.4 
59.2 
73.4 
73.4 


4 

5/ 

151 

46 


District Totals 


250 


2 70 


520 


376 


72.3 


144 


260 


668 


928 


670 


72.1 


258 


District 24 


























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


79 
18 

31 

108 
24 


68 

54 

4 2 

220 

24 


147 
72 

73 

328 
5 3 


100 
32 
44 

264 
4 6 


68.0 
44.4 
60.2 
80.4 
84.9 


47 
40 

29 

64 

8 


15 

14 
5 

17 
16 


14 

16 
30 
26 
14 


89 
30 
26 
43 

30 


21 

29 
20 

37 

71 


72.4 
66.6 
80.0 
86.0 
70.0 


8 

10 
5 

6 

9 


District Totals 


260 


41'-; 


673 


4 85 


72.0 


1 88 


67 


90 


157 


119 


75.7 


38 


District 25 


























Burke 
Caldwell 

Catawba 


117 
112 

200 


406 
562 

802 


52 3 

674 

1,002 


281 
504 
757 


53.7 
74.7 
75.5 


242 
170 

245 


64 
38 

99, 


241 
298 

600 


296 
336 
598 


204 
278 
465 


69.1 
82.7 
77.7 


91 

58 

171 


District Totals 


429 


1,770 


2,199 


1,542 


70.1 


657 


190 


1,039 


1,229 


01/ 


77.0 


282 


District 26 


























Mecklenburg 


1,032 


2,753 


3,785 


2,477 


65.4 


1,308 


198 


9 (6 


1,133 


768 


67.7 


365 


District 27A 


























Gaston 


332 


1,199 


1,531 


1,245 


81.3 


286 


17(1 


838 


958 


829 


86.5 


129 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 
Lincoln 


132 

15 


',6 3 
162 


695 
177 


62/ 
135 


90.2 
76.2 


68 
42 


41 
9 


1 1 8 

161 


159 
160 


125 

141 


78.6 
88.1 


34 

19 


District Totals 


14 7 


725 


8/2 


762 


87.3 


110 


61) 


769 


319 


766 


83.3 


53 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


600 


1,138 


1,738 


1,424 


81.9 


314 


114 


372 


486 


409 


84.1 


77 


District 29 


























Henderson 
McDowel 1 

• 
R jtherford 

Trar -./I vania 


161 

53 

48 

2 30 

106 


2 16 
1/6 

57 
50 3 

69 


397 
229 
105 
733 
175 


318 

166 

63 

4 9 / 

98 


80.1 
72.4 
60.0 
67.8 
56.0 


79 

6'i 

42 

2 ;6 

77 


37 
I 1 
L6 
72 

79 


91 

231 

29 

209 

43 


128 
244 

45 
280 

72 


98 

776 

70 

706 

42 


76.5 
92.2 
44.4 
73.5 
58.3 


30 
19 
26 
74 
30 


D strict Totals 


598 


1,041 


1,639 


1,142 


69.6 


497 


167 


602 


769 


591 


76.8 


178 



102 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 











Fel 


>nies 










Misdemeanors 








Pending 




Total 






% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 






7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


District 


30 




























Cherokee 




20 


90 


110 




61 


55.4 


49 


31 


92 


123 


R5 


69.1 


38 


Clay 




19 


10 


29 




23 


79.3 


6 


8 


19 


27 


16 


59.2 


11 


Graham 




28 


66 


94 




64 


68.0 


i0 


13 


25 


S8 


25 


65.7 


13 


Haywood 




144 


356 


500 




353 


70.6 


14/ 


69 


262 


331 


2 36 


71.2 


95 


Jackson 




44 


208 


252 




183 


72.6 


69 


39 


86 


125 


92 


73.6 


33 


Macon 




48 


82 


130 




71 


54.6 


59 


28 


37 


65 


31 


47.6 


34 


Swa i n 




12 


24 


36 




29 


80.5 


7 


7 


32 


39 


16 


41.0 


23 


District 


Totals 


315 


836 


1,151 




784 


68.1 


367 


195 


553 


748 


501 


66.9 


24 7 


State Tot 


als 


13,380 


43,708 


57,088 


42 


,966 


75.2 


14,122 


6,824 


27,886 


34,710 


27,154 


78.2 


7,556 



103 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASES 

1982-1983 



FELONIES 



OTHER 



GUILTY PLEA 




DISMISSALS 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



MISDEMEANORS 



OTHER 



GUILTY PLEA 




DISMISSALS 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



Guilty pleas constitute the largest disposition category 
for criminal superior court cases. The dismissal category, 
as graphed here, includes speedy trial dismissals and 



cases dismissed by the district attorney, both with and 
without leave. 



104 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 



Plea of 

Total Guilty 

Dispositions (Judge) 



2 7 
79 
52 

118 
30 

189 
60 

666 



18 

bO 
35 

74 

23 

119 

28 

357 



Plea of 
Not Guilty Dismissal 
(Jury) by D.A. 



2 


6 
6 

4 

15 
1 

34 



7 

1M 

9 
}6 
3 

50 
25 

148 



Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 




n 


o 






Other 


1 
2 
2 

5 
6 

16 



Plea of 

Total Guilty 

Dispositions (Judge) 



45 
215 
2 < r . 
266 

43 
575 

73 

1,452 



30 
111 
204 
149 

23 
L97 

37 

751 



Plea of Speedy 

Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 
(Jury) by D.A. Dismissal 



(l 
7 
6 
1 i 

7 
3 



Other 



5 





1(1 


lb 





81 


22 





3 


ib 





68, 


9 





11 


86 





885 


5 





28 



36 



179 



486 



District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Ma rt i n 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 

District Totals 



374 


2 32 


46 


56 


22 


1 


155 


112 


19 


47 


28 


2 


134 


74 


32 



53 


2 


8? 





16 





15 





21 






766 



468 



100 



127 



41 

11 

8 

2 

7 

69 



84 7 
46 

164 
70 
62 

589 



174 


37 


9 


11 


88 


19 


31 


10 


L3 


19 



316 



96 



26 


2 


8 


8 





18 


32 





26 


14 





15 


13 





17 



9 3 



8 3 



District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 



306 


126 


13 


161 





611 


3 36 


24 


237 


1 


57 


26 


2 


29 





750 


439 


63 


227 






1,724 



346 

38 

1,165 

428 



927 



216 

18 

625 

209 



1,977 1,068 



1,520 939 

125 74 

1,645 1,013 



102 



15 
10 

70 
55 

170 



100 
7 

10 7 



654 



85 

8 

441 

147 



443 
41 

484 



6 

13 


81 

40 



10 

2 

89 

17 

58: 



37 
3 

40 



98 
240 

26 
504 

862 



81 
9 

86 
9 3 

208 



8,86 
9 1 

916 



33 


5 


121 


80 


21 


2 


188 


>6 



363 



10 

3 

85 
74 

112 



600 
47 

547 



6 3 



2 
3 

12 
8 

26 



43 
7 

50 



37 





1/ 


91 





p, 


2 





1 


186 





144 



266 



3 











14 





6 






2 3 



166 
15 

180 



1.70 



6 

3 

34 
5 

48 



117 
22 

139 



District 6 

Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 



186 

454 

801 

74 

8,66 



56 

186 

91 

32 

363 



11 

29 

16 

9 

66 



55 

216 

93 

25 

389 



13 

24 
1 
8 

46 



78 

22 3 

111) 

39 

450 



46 


6 


91 


•12 


44 


9 


13 


1 



20 





6 


81 





39 


31 


6 


20 


15 





10 



194 



2 a 



14 7 



75 



District 7 

Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wi Ison 

District Totals 



298 


178 


10 


88 





49 7 


898 


18 


176 


1 


599 


366 


29 


182 






1,394 



848 



5 7 



446 



22 

4 

22 

48 



260 
290 

374 

924 



184 


7 


148 


18 


218 


80 



480 



46 



79 





50 


82 


() 


41 


94 





42 



255 



133 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



166 


12', 


3 


36 





307 


148 


42 


99 





640 


287 


66 


281 






1,113 



659 



111 



416 



4 

L7 
6 

27 



89 


41 


8 


608 


211 


34 


396 


20 3 


26 



986 



466 



68, 



31 





9 


139 





118 


109 





57 



2 79 



184 



105 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 










Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Plea of 


Plea of 






Speedy 






Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 




Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 






Dispositions 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


Dispositions 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by 


D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


district 9 




























Frankl in 


147 


93 


6 


57 


(1 


11 


304 


L55 


10 




124 





15 


Granville 


203 


124 


14 


"2 


n 


3 


173 


106 


6 




42 





19 


Person 


288 


162 


17 


105 


1 


3 


265 


112 


14 




95 


5 


39 


Vance 


272 


127 


14 


119 





12 


303 


153 


3 




106 


(i 


41 


Warren 


42 


19 


3 


13 





7 


76 


S2 


4 




34 


n 


6 



District Totals 
District 10 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 
District 12 



Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



sboro 



952 



525 



2,882 1,389 



276 192 

303 185 

427 317 



1,006 



694 



54 



119 



27 
17 

10 

54 



336 



1,295 



54 

02 

2 1 9 



;<> 



'4 



3 
19 
17 

39 



1 ,121 



2,055 



81 
209 

192 

482 



558 



746 



35 

101 

100 

236 



V 



64 



4 
7 
5 

16 



170 120 

221 101 

173 118 



11 


39 


18 


100 


13 


3 3 



564 



1,355 



7 70 



1 38 
496 

34 



330 



75 7 



455 



94 

2 74 

300 



42 



69 



5 7 



12 
22 

54 



162 



512 



247 



26 

190 

216 



10 
2 
9 

21 



1/ 



10 



6 

10 

16 



104 
132 
321 

557 



358 

04 4 
3,", 

80 
118 



50 


2 


7 7 


3 


52 


21 



279 



104 



249 



17 
27 

4 4 



26 



16 



40 



2,30 7 

006 



1,527 

487 



1,113 2,014 



92 

23 

115 



602 
2 62 

.".74 



64 

44 

108 



646 
283 

828 



16/ 

1 il 



12 
9 

21 



401 



614 



JO 

44 
43 

117 



Cumberland 
Hoke 


1,615 
165 


1,129 
83 


'J 7 
11 


345 

41 






44 
30 


607 
63 


204 
35 


35 
2 


162 
21 


District Totals 


1,780 


1,212 


108 


386 





74 


670 


309 


37 


173 


District 13 























35 

44 
62 

141 



114 



1 S9 



9 
20 

29 



186 
81 

26 7 



120 



6 31 



12 

57 
44 



113 



126 



131 



17 

8 

86 

111 



75 



116 



28 
36 



Robeson 
Scotland 


1,001 
188 


786 

) 4 ; 


96 
14 


09 
24 


3 



28 
7 


426 

9 1 


170 
60 


38 
2 


33 
9 


3 



182 
20 


District Totals 


1,189 


929 


109 


113 


J 


35 


517 


230 


40 


42 


3 


202 


District 17A 


























Caswell 

ngham 


113 
816 


01 

627 


4 
04 


22 
159 




1 


6 
5 


80 
604 


46 


3 
17 


12 

95 






19 
131 


ict Totals 


929 


700 


20 


101 


1 


1 1 


684 


407 


20 


107 





150 


District 17B 


























'- - r ' 1 


155 
574 


100 

420 


34 
4 


13 

11/ 


1 




7 
33 


161 

656 


55 
361 


39 
7 


21 

6;: 


3 



33 
220 


ict Totals 


7/9 


520 


38 


1 !0 


l 


40 


807 


416 


46 


89 


3 


253 


Ct 10 
Guil ford 



























166 

62 

252 



106 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 






District 19A 


Total 
Dispositions 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 


557 

608 


312 

389 


29 
27 


198 
159 






18 
33 


671 
549 


323 

288 


20 
19 


L15 

83 


11 



213 
157 


District Totals 


1,165 


701 


56 


357 





51 


1,220 


f.l 1 


39 


;/(](! 





370 


district 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 


159 
481 


85 
292 


9 
25 


49 
131 






16 
33 


221 

541 


97 
233 


10 

L4 


61 
78 






53 
r 16 


District Totals 


640 


377 


34 


180 





49 


762 


330 


24 


139 





269 


District 20 


























Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


302 
473 
652 
339 
527 


161 
263 
261 
179 

293 


4 
8 

15 
7 

26 


120 
185 
361 
137 
L94 




n 
n 




17 

17 
15 

If: 
14 


2 3 1 
34 1 
375 
385 
737 


125 
148 
L50 
229 
38 3 


4 
2 
5 
7 
22 


60 
102 

159 

96 

1 69 










42 
95 
61 
53 
163 



District Totals 



2,293 1,157 



60 



997 



79 



2,075 



1,035 



40 



586 



414 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 



1,682 


1,248 


138 


264 





11? 


74 


7 


24 





335 


205 


20 


39 





62 


4 7 


4 


6 





498 


265 


66 


138 






1,007 



16 
66 

184 
110 

376 



591 



10 

29 

117 
78 

234 



9/ 



11 
4 

23 



207 



4 
22 
34 
20 



32 



7 
71 

5 
29 

112 




9 

22 
8 

39 



1,652 



1,217 



922 



498 



58 



Ml 


6? 


4 


437 


146 


19 


100 


30 


4 


5 39 


260 


2? 



4 9 



43 


29 


2 


83 


4 3 


4 


417 


204 


20 


12/ 


64 


2 



300 



105 



372 



16 





69 


79 





193 


27 





39 


73 





1 84 



4/6 



10 





2 


21 


(3 


15 


56 





137 


19 





42 



670 



34 



28 



1136 



106 



District 24 

Avery 
Madi son 
Mitchell 
Watauga 
Yancey 

District Totals 

District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



101) 

12 

4 4 

26,4 

45 

486 



281 
504 
757 

1,542 



1,245 



37 
9 

16 

125 

24 

211 



166 
193 
407 

756 



2,477 1,205 



619 



2 
5 

44 
3 

54 



19 
16 
52 

87 



150 



108 



58 
17 
27 
84 
17 

203 



101 
279 
270 

660 



1,034 



457 



26 



20 



3 
1 
1 
11 
1 

17 



3 
16 
26 

45 



68 



41 



21 
20 
20 

3 7 
21 

119 



304 
278 
465 

94 7 



768 



829 



13 
4 
9 

13 

10 

49 



389 



330 



315 



1 

3 
1 
6 
2 

13 



73 


12 


121 


14 


195 


47 



73 



73 



7 








11 





2 


2 





8 


10 





8 


8 





1 


38 





19 


55 


1 


6 3 


89 





54 


90 





133 


234 


1 


250 



214 



1 78 



151 



247 



Cleveland 
Lincoln 


627 
1 35 


382 
100 


23 
10 


265 
21 







17 
4 


125 
141 


54 

44 


4 
46 


40 
11 


o 




27 
40 


District Totals 


762 


482 


33 


3' 86 





21 


266 


96, 


50 


51 





6 / 



107 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1,1982 — June 30, 1983 



Felonies 



Pie* of 

Total Guilty 

Dispositions (Judge) 



Pica of 
Not Guilty Dismissal 
(Jury) by D.A. 



Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 



District 28 



Buncombe 


1,424 


1,028 


68 


240 





District 29 












Henderson 


318 


220 


18 


69 


n 


McDowell 


166 


99 


14 


46 


n 


Polk 


6 3 


36 


1 


23 





Rutherford 


497 


259 


60 


16 3 


n 


Transylvania 


98 


51 


6 


35 





District Totals 


1,142 


665 


qq 


336 





District 30 













Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
State Totals 



61 


28 


1 


26 





23 


l 7 


1 


3 


1 


64 


41 


3 


9 





35 3 


212 


21 


111 





133 


92 


6 


30 





71 


20 


4 


34 





29 


10 


2 


11 






784 420 38 224 

42,966 25,141 2,618 13,531 



72 



Other 



11 
7 
3 

15 
6 

42 



6 

1 
11 

9 
65 
13 

6 

101 
1,604 



Misdemeanors 



Plea of 

Total Guilty 

Dispositions (Judge) 



Plea of 
Not Guilty Dismissal 
(Jury) by D.A. 



409 



98 

225 
20 

206 
42 

591 



204 



318 



Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 



13 



53 


2 


122 


3 


5 


1 


117 


13 


21 


1 



20 



85 
16 
25 
236 
92 
31 
16 

501 269 29 

27,154 12,871 1,381 



30 


16 


7 


1 


13 


1 


159 


7 


42 


2 


13 


2 


5 






59 



130 



Other 



133 



14 





29 


63 





37 


6 





8 


39 





37 


8 





12 



123 



31 





8 


7 





1 


10 





1 


57 





13 


18 





30 


9 





7 


5 





6 


.37 





66 


122 


20 


6,660 



108 



woocoooinowwcocoi-«i— i co oi 



w>— it-ioina*ooco 

f— t f— i *— t 



in «■ o co 10 oo m in m ai 

ID ■* W co CM I- I 



C/D 




H 




« 




P 




O 




U 




X 




© 




NN 




X 




w 


on 


(V. 


• 


p 


90 

0\ 


en 






k. 


w 


« 


K 


> 


H 


H 




w 


Z 


.£ 




tZ 


en 


en 

c 


W 


w 


en 


3 


< 


Cj 


U 


c/t 


^v, 


O 


en 


a 

l/l 



5 5 



Cj S «s-cnminwinoim«3-iDOr»cocr> cm id 

. _ t— ICVJP^r- I ID W I lHiHh.rOfH(SJ I — l — I 



wincO"3-mO'-i0^coioiD 
«— *«— i w co *— • w in id ■— • id in 



o o-\ 
cti r-* 

.-I id 



oooomoommooooo oo 



coowvcoonoo'jcoin'rino <a- in 



r-~mcr>mwincoioocooimoco in w 

cm «^- r*~ HinmHinm^-cONiDN mm 

CM C\J •— "CM iHin m *3- 



ooooooomom mo 



CX>lOOW«=rinC0«— tmCsJ ID ID 



«jMn\Din^rrsO'* w id o> 

I — rl-Ln^iniD^r^COlD ID CO 

co w f-H i—t i— » r~ in 



OC0r-r-r-.*i-oo «J- cr> 
co w >-i r-~ i— i co «3- coin 

CM CM t— i in CM 



in^coicNmncsi co w 
<-h«3-Ocmcm inin o w 

t-H CM i— I WW IDA- 



OOOOOOOO OO 



mino* cm cm 



inWrlOMOOf *3-CM 

ooiHcinwino cm id 
co id cm r-~ in r-. co 



in t-Hi— <oocMCMCMinf— <ocm*-<»— *o oo en 



wi-. o in o •— i o ■— 1«3-"— i id in 



r-lOOOCM>-llOO UlH 



X 




o 


z 


O 


< 


0) 

ex 


w 


< 


S 


c 


w 


M 


Q 


90 


en 


o 


« 


rn 


£ 


v© 


Q 


en 

c 


Z 


c 


< 


eu 


^»s 


t/i 


J 


41 


W 


« 


b 


u 


**»* 


o 


>< 


41 


z 

o 


WD 
< 


J 




w 




b 




u, 




O 




en 




w 




O 




< 





>> SB (MOniOHO<taOClNlDO(M W CO 

• <*» CM •— < i— < in 



rtOininOHrtC)wi»)<\ntHH co r- 



£ - 



© fS ono^*JM(OOr" i o w id »-« r-^ i— 1 ro 

a, M *H CM f-i CO *3- 



i o cfi in ko co o Cft cy o 



■8" 






inoooooooooooinin oo 

romcftcooiinrtino* ¥ iin^h.N mis 

HCA^MnoicoiDfOinrostMNTt id in 
co i— i t— i .— i .-< 



WNnnNHlDinKlinl^CKOlD CM--" 

incoointnconwinNNO^ro w co 

HsftnoinHooDHMmioNN cocT" 

fOr- IHrtOji- !•— » CM «— 'CM fH f— t 



Z u. ^L u. s: 



u- as u. z: i 



mn^-cjrirsrsH in ro 
rH ri WW 



< co in id O CO CO co «a- 

t-i in cm co co 



OJOiOOlKO^lD 

t-i «^- w oo id 



ro «a- 
in o 



oooooooooo oo 



comiDiDoinococoi-i r~w 



inr^wco<3-coowor-* t-toj 
■3- oo in co co r—t cm cm *— i in co 

f-H CM i— I 



omoooooo oo 

i— i in o** oo «a* C-*. cti cy» co oo 

MoinwofOinst r~ «a- 

r-l CM rl CM 



inoiosinr^ww o id 

o co •— ir- iw«3-r^CTi iocti 

O n oi <f ro id h o w i— < 

CMW rilMrlH HH 



in <f in io co ci N en oco 
inwr—coT-t CO'- 1 coco 

r-H •-( (Orl 



s: u. s u_ s: u- s: 



<— en 

C r— C 

•f- CU •!" 



109 



co o o o *r o o ■ 



CO ^J" LO LO LO O ' 



co «— < co co cr> ^t 



as 
p 
C 

u 

X 

c 



c/2 - 
K > 

u 

B £ 
W ■= 

,— N O 

r/j a 



s s 



r- ■— < cr> ^j- lo lo 
<T» «d- co co «d- 



Lf)r-(NfSjrOfNUDrH 



o — 

c * 



I" 



-I 

H .2 



CO LO* CO LO «— "OCVJLD 01 LO 

>— (i— < «— » q- in eft f^. lo *d- 

CNJ "X) CVJ i— ( t— 1 



loOlOOOOOO oo 



ldo«3-looocooooo or-. 



^ M CO CMT) LD CO ^ r- co 

«a- oo co lo co cm oo r»» o 
co i— < «3- oo oo 



CO «— « LO CD CO i— I 

o^ r- co «^- co .— i 
m t— < «a- cm 



CO LO CO OO HN 

CO en «3- co co <o 

CO LO OO LO 



LO o o o o o 



O LO LO i— * LO VO 
C\J CM OO OO *t f— i 

LO CO i— » lo cn 



co co in o ^- c\j ai n <o co 
tttHncriOmHH or- 

00 »-h ^" i— t 



LOOlOOOLOLOO OO 



cnOMn 


oo o 

LO LO 


COOrHfOCO^tCnCO 

cocoLoco«3-r-.cocr> 


CO I— t 
LO CTi 


i— ' CO OO OO 


^r vo 

00 o 

O r- 


OOCOlOOCOlOCOO 


oo co 


co lo "^f co 


CO LD O (TiOMOCsJN 

lo«3-cocoooooo«=J- 


i— 1 OO 
o CO 



LOCO^J-OOf— lO^J-CTi 

C^NLDCvJOHNn 

«— « *d- oo oo •— I 



LO O 
LO LO 

co <=r 



•d- ro N CO C^ ro O <a- 

N ID CTi N N m LO CO 
«-H i— I CO OO 



^root-Hoocrtco *d- r--. 

O LO O r- LO CO LO LO 

oo «— i co i— i oo •— i r-- *d- 



oooooo oo 



•^HCOCOCnJN COLO 



co lo co co co r- oo cm 
oooo^rooLoro co co 



•-•OOOr^OOO coo 



OCM^ai^-lTlH^ cn o 



VO OO CD i— I CO CO 



o 


eg 
U 
<— 


<r. 


















z 

< 



■r 

V 


« 

a 




« 


00OOO^HOOr-< 


Ol i—l 


cn 


•-.t 


^3- ro 


co r^ 


5 


< 


u 




e 














*s 


B 


_. 




CMOOOf^CMOO 


IT) CM 


•-f 


1 — 1 


"3- r-- 


CC CO 


UJ 


a 


_c 




J. 






^ H 






f ~ i 


Q 


5C 


c 




rs 














X 




S 




IN 


coounooro^-ro 


r-^ vio 


CO 


ID 


co r^ 


f-H CO 


*g 




D 






^H oo 


Lf) 


ro 






■3" r-H 


«£ 


>c 




— 


1—1 


»-* 












ox 


< 




■C 

















C 

E 
U 




















z 






e 


SN^ouiNMn 


ro en 


wr~-o* 


CM <-t 


< 






c 


>3- CO CSJ 00 


CM CO 


«* 


s* 




LO LO 






o 


1-1 


ro 


r j 






CM 


y»». 


r 




















- 


■■r. 
■a 




C 
■ 




OOOOLDOOO 


o o 


o 


O 


LO uo 


O O 


^ 




1 


q-iOtOCTll^OOO 


CO r~ 


,_( 


Ol 


un co 


CO .sl- 




< 


^- <— • o ^- m csj ro 


^J- CO 


CM 


CM 


*3- ro 


CM «3" 









? 




1-1 








CM co 




i> 


■r 

V 

< 




















z 






u 


o^wo<f ior~* 


O VO 




^ H 


o co 


co co 


n q- co O 03 ^ co >-i 


CM vi> 


LO C-- 


C 




s 


< 


r^ cm tx> yD *3- cm r^ 


VD ^3" 


r*. 


un 


r^ f— < 
■a- ■* 


i-f CD 


-J 






























IDr^OtOlOM'-HC^ 


CM CO 


r-~ 


cn 


^a o 


co cr» 


u. 






■« 




r^ co ro cr» 


• • •; 




in 


CO «3- 


lo cn 









■3 

B 
V 


ro 


LO 


ro 






CO 


- 






- 














O 






















x 










_ll/)_ll/l_H/)_H') 


_l W) 


_j 


uo 


_l CO 


_l CO 










l_ L j>_Lij_ ljL j>— ,uj^-< 


UJ >-■. 


LlJ 




UJ t— . 


UJ i—. 


u 










u-^u_zu-^u.s: 


u- Z 


u_ 


£ 


u. ■Z. 


u- e: 


w 






















< 












(/) 








^ 



NfOmrONrtcrioj 



<— i O0 tJD CD i 



OOCOuDCOCNJOOOOVO 



Loaicooot^«^-cnco <x>*d- 

i— < f— ( CO <=f LO 



OOOOLOOOLO oo 



CNJrH-^-^-COlOOfO OLD 

cTii-hooloOcoolo roko 

OfON^-- icocold r--LO 

i— \ v-i i~\ t— lO0O0«— IH i— It— t 



UOCTiNrOCOCTlLnO LD i— 1 
MrHQiOrOHMCvl COLD 



u_ s: u_ s: u_ s i 



■st ro oi cn h h 



orxj(\irj-N' 



olooooo oo 



CO kD OO -^J- O i— I OOO 

OOLO^OOCOO i—l CM 

OOCT)<d-r0^f VDO 

f-t r-i r-\ OO OO i— I O0 



ID^J-^IN iX)N COCO 

LD HNN r- 1 LO <^fLD 

H CO i-H 



U0 _l oo 



c 3 

•r- '^ o 

_ <U ^_ 

Q- C lo 

3 O C 

O T> O 



Oi co co n co co o co 



i O O CM 



*d- i-h CT> oj n ro 



H 

« 
P 
O 

u 
2 < 



«2 

w s 
X > 

H "5 

w •= 

Si 

5Q 8- 



J3 2 



o m 

8 * 



OO^^f f^CMOJ LO «^- 
CM CM CO -— » LO CO LON 

i— t cm »-t CO CM 



I. 

■a m 

_"8 



OOOOLOO oo 



lo cm n «d- lo en coco 



id o>n (\j Oin co lo 

tDC0OO<-0 , > MOO 

«— i ro lo ld co «-h o^ 



ocoonocmcocmcoco lo r-- 

Hr-lC\JCVjnN«JNtH r-t (^ 



Ln<jDcr>c\jcocj-r^-*d-LO<3- "^ o 
c\jc\iroc\j'^LO'd-Ln «— • lo n 



IDfOCVJ^tHiDfOiOOn CM «— < 

•^LDCOCOOVDCO^'-ICVJ NOl 

<— I CO CM 



id O in ro CO CsJ MX) H(\| 



<3- *fr 

CO LO 
CM CO 



OOOOLOOOOOO LO O 



IDCMOIH 


o o 


«* CTi O LT\ 


r-~ ro 


COrvwro 


co co 


r-» i-i CO "3- 
*t r^ r-~ lo 


en cm 

CM LO 



r--«^-COCOC0LOCMCOCM«J3 CM «— < 

«=3-oONCOLONO<3-r-- ur> cm 

i— l CO CM •— * CM CM CM OO CT> •— t 



CTi CM 
O^ ^J- 

<3" CM 



--•NcOinrs n lo cr> 



«=f LO 

LO CT> 



CM LO 
CO LO 

CO O 



lo «— < CO CO *-H LO 


LO LO 


i-l ^" O <T> 


i— 1 CO 


CM t—1 CO r-t LO 


CM CO 


O CO CM 


CM CTi 



CM CO 


ON ^J OC\l Oi 


LO LO 


«st- ro cr, n 


CO o 


LO CM 


(X) CM LO ȣ) ID ID 


r^ lo 


OCOi^h 


LO O 


CO LO 


i— 1 


CM «— • 


LO CM 


LO CO 



N io (^ in r-- o 
r^ co o cm r^ •— < 

i— I CM i—l .— t t-< 



oooooo oo 



1£ tH f^ Ol N CM LO CM 

r^ co o o cm en oco 

CM CO CM rl- i—l O «* 



couio^f oo en 
co en lo cm en i-H 

1/1H LO CM 



O O O o o o 



LO LO 
i—l LO 


tr>N^- it n ij 


CO o 
LO LO 


«3- co r-~ O 

CO f» LO CTi 


*3- CO 
CO r-- 


un lo 


o oo co q- oo i-i 


CO CO 


O LO ■— 1 CO 


*d- «* 


co in 
lo en 


CO O CT> i— 1 CM CO 

id CO Ln io CO in 


O CO 

r-~ lo 


•-H LO LO LO 

o co o o 


i-l CO 

o co 



LO r-» LO co o O 

HOIDID CON 
LO LO •— 1 N "JO 



© 

z 

w 
S 

w 
Q 

C/5 









Mi 

e 



/— L (fl 



Z 

© 

w 

fa 
O 
c/3 
W 

a 
< 



Si 



•> in 

5 2 



1 I I 



£ - 



O O CM CM N CM CTt <3" 



i i— i LO «sj" CTt iX) LO t— < 



CM O O CO LO CO P-* ■ 



iDLDOi^CNjfOCONOM LO - 



° 2 CT»^-CO^T-ir^ COLO 



OOOLOOO oo 



B 

.2 « 

??5 CMCTiCM<=a-<^-<d- CO^ 



I* 



I LO r^ LO CTt CO 



-=C t^-cocnor^r^ COLO 

J! i-l LOLT.CMCOOCO 

O C r-H CM ^ 



iHinioMoiCvjco^f 



Of^airvCO^J-c\J»- )LOi— i ^3-0 

CM i— ICMi-li— I ^- ro ■— I ^- ^-ICM 



OOOOOOOOOO 



o o 

■—I CO 
O r-^ 



cocMLOOr^ror^co^j-LO rocn 



co co 

o LO 
^3- CM 



i— t i— * CTi CT> 1— I CM 



HrlCJNlt^ r^CM 



i^- r^. i— ( id" cm ^J- r-^LO 



O O O t=> (=> O OLO 



LO O CO CM LO O 



CM O O O CM O 



LO CO CM o r-~ CO 



CM ^J- CO ro 
LO LO 



O O LO O O O 



CM CTI O i— » LO CO 



CO N- i-H 

.-< CTt CO 


^■O^NCOHM 

ID »-l n rH l£) r-l CO 
HHH(SJHH 


co «^r 

CM <-* 


LO i—1 


HMH^ OCO 
N O O LO LO O 


T-i LD 

co r^ 

i—l CM 


<3" rl CO CM 
O CTl i— ( CO 
«-1 t-H 


«3- «-l 
o o^ 
1—1 


"3" LO CO 


t— I LO CTi CM CM LO «— t 

N^'ltrHOO^lD 


o ^f 

CO i— 1 

ro ro 


•^- CO 
O LO 
<D <D 


LD i— 1 *^f- LO ^X> CM 


CO LD 

t— i 


r-. r-. «^- o 

LnLDHH 


rj- ,— 1 



u. s u. s: u. s: 



1— •!- c 



II 



c^ CD CD CD ro o 



O CO CNJ in CM CO 



i o en c\j «a- 



H 

O 
U 

PS 

c 

« 
to 
fi- 

to 

a 

H 
Z 



a s 

<■» ro 

I s 



•-I *r r» ^I CO CO 



I 



O — 



cm co 


(T> r^ 


tH St in CO 


p~ CM 


o co 


CTi CM 


t-» •— 1 CM CM 


oi «3- 


•3- 


CM CM 


«— ' 


1— i 



I" 
1$ 



o in o o o o oo 



cnj o ^ yD ldm ro vo 



o *t o «tf- 
^j- ph cr\ ^r 



o o o o o o 



*a- CT\ CO l£> «— I CNJ 



crv in i— i m o o 

in io LO CNJ H Ol 



O<£no ro tn <j\ 
in co <— I cnj r-- o 
^r i— i «^- cnj 



o o o o o o 



r^- r-. CTi in cnj in 



CO r-. co i— i i-H CO 

CNJ «— t O CTi CO O 

ron ro cnj 



ONCOt COH 
*tf" «3" r-( f-l U*) lO 

<3- ro «a- co 



O in o O O in 



co in at CO ** O 



< 



M 
C 

3 

Q 

■a 



O st- •— "t\jnrH <d- r~ 

P^OCMCOI — CM in in 

t— i^HCMt— 1»— ico in in 



in co 
in in 
co co 



O *3- 
r>* in 



oo co in o «3- co 
co co oi co co «— i 



rtlOOJi-l 


crt r-. 


co o in st" 


OO «3" 


O CM 00 CT> 


co i-i 


HC0HO 


CM CO 


O "3" i-l 


i-1 in 


r-1 00 <£> 


oo in 



tt s- 



LncMCTtinvncM oo^ 



O O CM O CM O 



O O -3- sr "* «3- 



^5, U 



W * 

Q 5 
z 1 



a - 






in co in cr> co o 

CM CO i— I CM 



in «3- cm r~~ o^ oo 



5 - 

■a n 

a. 

o S 

2 s 



<— i i— t ro o «3- rH 



CNJ O O O CNJ o 



in •— i o cnj in ro 



in •— i r- 1 cnj 



O o o r- O r-* 



O r- 1 CNJ CNJ CNJ CO 



CO O CM O 


in o 


o o en o 


oo o 


00 in CM CM 


O 00 


CM CO 


CM CO 



i— i m o cm 



to « 

to w 
w c 

Z M 

to 
to 

to 
o 

to 



.5 v 



oooooo oo 



m o o o o o 



UO f^- 

00 r^ 




co co in 
r-. r^- rj- 


CM 


CO 

oc 


CO 

r 


10 

•-O 


CO 


o. 
St 


<t OHOl 

oo r~ cm cm 


i-1 ^3- 
CM CO 


oo r^ 


CO 


o CM oo 


CM 


,-. 


"l 


00 


rO 


r 


-3- CO O sf 


CO r-1 


— '-Cj 

•-< o 

•-< CM 


r ■ 


co in vo 
in o o 


CO 
CM 


in 


a 
00 


ir. 


O 


It 


uo cm ■* o 
co o in co 


f— 1 CO 

in «a- 


t oo 
in in 




o o t-^ 


OO 

a. 

CO 


in 

C J 

r j 


oo 

r 
-3 


o 


a. 
m 

C J 


CTl 


*? co in *r 

■-1 ^J- M 


o r^ 
in .-! 



_J OO _l <S) _J l/l 

UJwUJm LlIm 

u.2:u-2: u. s: 



O o O o o in 

O O m co o r^ 

in r>. o »— t r^ c> 

CNJ CNJ 



in «— t *s- ^j- o r-- 

in en in o in m 
ro ^- i-i cnj 



<Ti r> cnj ro i— . o 
ro i£> co cr» cnj id 
ro «— i ^h r-i in ro 



u. s; u_ 2: U- 2: 



0000 00 



OHl/lM CNJ CO 



_J LO _J V) —J <S) 
UJ •— I LU t— I LxJ •— < 

Li_ z: u- z; u_ 2: 



r— I- O 



12 



(A 




H 




ft! 




P 




o 




u 




a; 




o 




»x 




ft! 




W 


r»l 

00 


fiu 


1 


p 


00 


c/3 






u 


w 


« 


S 


> 


H 


"« 




u 


Z 


.— 




lZ 


en 


c 


w 


u 


c/a 
< 
V 


3 

a 

41 


>«v 


o 


C/J 


a 





a 


CTi 00 P~ CO 


io <£> 






CM CM 




A 






















>> 








Q 


Ml 
3 


i— i en O •"-> 


•-" o 


i 




•H cm «^ r~ 


lo o 


00 


• _H 


f— » t— * 


1 


e 






.a 


00 






Q 


. 


en vo tr> «a- 


«• o 



.-H •— 1 ^f .-H 


LO CM 


lo vo r-. co 


CM «d- 


CO CO T vo 


CM ^f 


ro kDinro 


00 Cn 


en CO ro ro 


ro cm 


cm ^ ro i^ 


LO CM 


•* r-l 


LO 




i— < .—I 


•"- 1 


t— I i— 1 



I" 



■-"«*■ CM CO CO CM 

^■ifiroi — I — «tf- 

.—I CM H(<1 



in *a- o in ir> en 

IDfONIS CO O 
.—I ■— I CM CM 



o o o o o o 



CO Cn CM LO CM CO 



COO'JN WN 

>t a tfio o en 
in-HN >h co cm 



•JNOH *? C^> 
1DHNO 00—1 
r^ CM CM •— I Cn CO 



o o o o o o 



s< 22: 



en 
cn 


ro «3- cm 
co o co 


o 
o 


CM 

CO 


ld 


ro CO CO 


o 


-. 


>* 


lo ro lo 

r- 1 CM o 


r- 


ro 



in ur> r^. in cm o 

i—t >— < in in r-» oo 



p-. in in ro ro co 

o^-oco fH CM 

CO in CO CM t— « CO 



«3- 00 in «3" O CM 
C7^ «3- r-» ID r-» •— I 

.— i ro «-h »— i ro in 



r-w «— < cr> i— < id cm 
00 cm ^ *— ' ro ro 
r— i i—t ro ro in *3- 



o o o o o o 



ro r-. cr. «— ' ro cri 



r^i-HCO cr in o 

LP N o«t ID CM 
in ID ID in •— I CM 



in t-i csj co r-- en 
r- co co •— ' in cr> 



o o o o in in 



ro O in ro CTi r-. 



CT> «— I i—l H O CM 

in cm co ^ **■ in 
h cm *t in in r*-. 



OO^-roroo^rsj- 



mcT>comrocMOCMin«— ■ 
*— * m cm ro in ro ro 



co^-inincriCMcr.r-*.a^ro 
rHCMrorocorou-)in»— tro 



r-»^'r^«=i - co«3"*3 _ ro«— icm r-- r-* 

oiNco«Hir>iHiHif>criM «=j-r- 

i— 1 1— i i— it— i t—i ,— i t— i mm 



<-»^tCT\cricr>r^cM*— ioro 

COCMCMCO'^CT'CM'— tinCM 

HHCJHfOHHHfOLn 



oooomooooo oo 



mrorocomcoin'^-'— »m «— i in 



WH^NrMincMnsrs rom 
Oforv^j-ioNrocoNn ctin 
rocM*d-romrororoLnr^ C\j o 



ro o en O 


CM o 


cn cm — * cn 


O l-H 


LO CM O CM 


io *d- 


U0 f—t ^- T— 1 


l-H CM 


CM CM I- 1 


*3" OO 


l-H CM LO CM 


n~ «3- 



ft! 


« 


O 




z 


o 


< 


4) 
Oil 


w 


< 


S 


c 


w 


n 


a 


oo 


CD 


o 


»-< 


rn 


S 


SO 





ox 

e 


Z 


c 


< 


4* 

a. 


|j 


S 


w 


« 


b 


*^ 


**^ 


O 


> 


CI 


z 


OH 

< 



■" m CMrocMCO'*'-' 



CM cm en U0 rH p*» 



• 2 CMChrocMini-" 
J i cm >jn ion 



T ro cm ro vo r~ oo 



.2 v 

•a •» 



o o o ld o ir> 



Hituiio en en 



hoioco i-H r». 

«3- \£> i— i ro LT) o 
cm i— i ro H 



O LT) o o o o 



f- CO ■— i O r-» «H 



CO"3-Om-i 


r-*. ld 


»j- r~ i— i 00 


i-n in 


CM cm ro 


ro LT) 


■-h en rj- 


O Lfl 



00«-h«— "p^CMmrocMO imm 



<*mcM^j-<^-mromOf— i roo 

•-H CM 



CO 00 CO <=)■ 


VD CM 


LT) O CM ro 


r- oo 


l~-rHSN 


«d- CO 


iX5 i— i ro i— » 


O CO 


ro cm ro i— i 


vo ro 


rtr-HO<J 


00 LO 



HrtNO 


CO i-H 


wsinai 


CO vo 


LO M5 OO OO 


oo cn 


CM oo »o «3" 


co co 



O m 

00 rH 
r-t C\J 



o o o m o o 



o m m ro cm m 



o o o m mo 



cr» *d- cr* in o cm 



ooooooomoo oo 



NCO^-focoinM^-LncTi m«— t 



w 

O 

w 
o 



tt *? 



cr> cm m o <cf CM 

in «q- ro r-t o in 

f— I «— » (\JH 



m cm ro ro 00 in 
i— * co ro 0"t «cfr r^. 
cri •— • ro CM CM 



_J fjT) _) OO 

UJ i— I LiJ »~h 

U- z: u_ s: 



ro •— < cr> *^ cm m 
r— cja ro ro hm 
CM CM l-H i— I «a- ^r 



o m m o mm 

COH«4-S CM CO 

i— i ro cm <3- ro 



s:u-s u- s: 



•— tCMCMf-HCMCMrO^CMin o«^- 

m^f0^comcocr>CTiro«d- ^t^- 
^-t «j- ro 



CO 




~^ 




4-J 


T> 


u 


V- 




o 


1- 


»t- 


■t-> 




m 






-I 


a 


CO 



113 



LP O <*0 CNJ «3" ■ 



I r-^ CNJ CNJ LO 



fO^iHrOOOyDNLDCVJ un »— i 



H 
« 

C 

w 

OS 

in - 
w g 

X > 

u 

Z £ 

w i 

<i 

,-v 



o J. 



"- 1 cc 

O ro 
CO ro 



r-~ r^ 

CO t-H 



CT>LO*3-C0rOLO«H-t— ' OCT> 

■-" ■-" m cm 



-HO>ino>tonQ-o id ^ 

CM*3-rOC0t-H«3-CMC0 CTi CO 

<— < cm t— i ro cm r^ 



OOOOLOOOO oo 



I" 



2 S 
o a 
H .2 



OOCOOH cor- 



CM CM 

CO LO 
CO CO 



CM •— Il/INCSJOCOOI 
H^-romiDOtTiM 
■— ( t-H ro «3- .— < <3- LO 



r~~ r-- 

O >-* 

O CM 



ino^c\jHH(v>ivi cm co 
•—I muiuj w* CO «3- 



CM LO CM t— ' t^J- CO CM CTi O t-H 

HHCSJCMOOJ^ CO CTi 



OOloOLOOOO CD O 



^D<3-ir>^j-CM7iair^ ro in 



vc ro ^o ro «t i — o r~-. 

■— ' «3" CO CO CO ■— If— 'CM 

t-i «a- .-h .-h 



CO O 
ro CO 



loooloolooooo 



o o 

•a- r- 



CMrocoor--.ro«3-cr)COCM cmoo 

5t<tNCTi\DCvlin<HC0l^ ro *3- 

OLDCT>LnCMO^COCM«3-CM to VD 

CM CM t- It— 'CM r— IHHM t— If— 1 



OHWO^O«tMnH LO CTi 
O W n C\J -J CM ID CO tj- CM CO'— I 

r-H CM «* «— ' 



•ho^oo- 



cm o r^ r^ < 



COrOt-HrxJCMOO^COrO CM CM 



2 
o 


U 


z 





< 


01 


w 


< 


s 


■a 
e 


u 


n 


Q 


3C 


1/3 


O 


— 


r»i 


£ 


« 




tr 





B 


z 


— 
C 



_ ^ 

^ o 

^ 8 

y- at 

- 
O 



i t\J LO OM\ ^JD CO 



s - 



C J, 









B 

a 

■3 

*- 


< 


o m 

«— i r-^ 

CNJ CNJ 



om^NO^coin 



' r— ifomtn r- 1 «^j- en ro 
lo cm «d- t— t crt «3- 



LOLO«a-«3-LOcocr>f— ' ro co 
co CO Hinui ro lo 



oococncooroi— i 



■-" o o lo co <d- ■ 



cyjoiDOrvOco cmlo 

CM t-H f- 1 LO CM CM LOO 



OOOOOOOO 



O O 
CO <=f 



OOOOOOOO 



CClDCOOinNCON OtHr 



co co 


co o ro cm 

OUlHtf 


t— ' t-H CTi LO 

cr. cm o^ co 


r^ ro 
O r~ 


ro -a- 

t-i Ol 
LO "3- 


co o- en r— 

^H LO t-H 


-h cti air^ 
t-H cm ro CTi 


CM LO 

ro cm 



o o 

U3 t— t 
t—l CTt 



coinrHLnNttOLO or-- 

C0LniOC0VDO.00CO kDi—t 

co ro in oj en h co o no, 

«— < CO OO CM (XI CNJ T-H 



rOLDNLnro^ «^-lo 

»—l r-H CNJ 



Mr- l<3-LT)r^CNJ«3-.— tCNJCO OCNJ 



CNjOLOi-Hr-HOrOOOO ^Hf— I 



cnj«— i«d-CNj<x>i— iroomcM COUD 



<^ rOlDOMM^HO 



OlOOOOOOOOO oo 

^DLniOCOLDfOCTlLnrHC^ CNJCO 

r*-i— i in vd en o LD c\j co ldld 

*— i cm ro "X) m cm cnj 



<Tiroro«d-«3-ocriOcocM r--cTi 

*^-^1'X»COCNj«^t-'--HCTt^rO CNJ^ 

r^r^r^CNjroco^d-or^CNj hld 

nro ro H^roiomro CNjm 



u_s:u-2:ll_e:li_e:u-s u-e: 



-^ — T3 

> > <u 

ro fO S- 

o o >— 



I JZ F— 

5 < 3 



14 



CT> LO O O CTi LD 



SO 



OU UO •— I LO U3 CO ID N IT Oi 
Ol C\J C\J «— lr- 1 CTiiX)"— < 



en 

H 
05 

p 
o 
u 

OS 

o 

Wo 
00 

&N « 

C/3 - 

w s 

X >; 

IT* e« 
w 

w •= 

«s 

u] 

,— s O 

CD & 



a 2 



o _ 

s * 



TJ ox 



r^ ro ^j- ^ CTi r^ o id 

a> «^ n ih ro lo f- < «— < 

i—l CO i— i 



•-•OCTiCTlinH LDO 

O co cr. cr. «— <o '—'CO 

«— t •— i co c\j uo co 



r-i-HcriCh^oo oco 

rOLOLD^j-O'X) o»x> 
HHOJH «^- ro 



OOOLDOO OO 



CO 0> l£> O «tf- Ol 

O C\J C\J i— - «3" 



ro in 


CM IN 


co id ■» r- 


cnj co 


ro CNJ 


CO CM 


ro ai 


o <* "3" rj- 


LD Cn 


in »— i 


in c\j 


LT) t-H 


C\J 


CNJ 


ID i-H 



CO o 


ro ro f— i co 


U0 O 


uo «3- r^ r-. 


CO LT> 


C\J 



O O O O OU1 



z< S^H 



in *3 co m cm id 

CNJ ON in in ON in 


CNJ *T 

Cn in 


ID CO 
i-H «J- 


o o 

co i-n 


co «3 *3- in 
co co lt) in 


in en 
in id 


CO co 
en id 


en o o co cnj co 


Cn ID 


i-h IN 

o o 
in in 


•-H ID 

o <a- 
o r-». 


O «3- ID ID 

en o co id 


ro i— i 
en 00 


o in 


en ro n. o co o 

CNI rH Cn IN CNJ O 


I-H Cn 


id en 
i-H in 



i— ifl- vcor. in cm in 
KOONiniO «3- >3- 
cm cm in cm in 13- incn 



r~. co 


in en 


in m in •— * 


CNJ ID 


■3- en 


in id 


«3- CM 


CNJ CNJ CO ^J- 


ID ID 


CNJ O 


*3- IN 


CNI CO 


ID *-< — 1 *-l 


in cnj 


"3- "* 



cocNjocnincoiDooiDvD mco 
cn ro in CO •- i ro *3- i-h ,-h i-ico 



iDincocnn-iniDin^-co co pn 
«a- cm id cn i-h cn *-j- cm ^- in 



ooooooooinin oo 



•-lOOOiDiDiocncNjin oco 

cncocnocNjooiDiDO "3- CO 

r^cot— i ai cTt co id rs o o in oo 

i-H i— 1 i— I i— IHr- If— t CO CNJ i-H i- 1 



COCOlDincoOINvDCOCNJ Cnji— I 
t— icniDCNjiDCNicnocn»ej- «3- cn 

CO i-H CM *3- CM i—i in 



id in vc in ^t in 



"3- "3- O O *3- «9- 



OS « 
o 



Z 

< 

w 

S 
w 

Q 
en 



Q 
Z 



CUD 
< 

■a 
c 
« 

oe 

o 

ri- 
se 

DC 

■3 

e 



5 2 



iDcon-Hcno enen 
incMi-HCMiDco coin 



CM i-H ID i-H CO CM 



«=j- i— i in I3 - on in 



i in co in en 



•3- in 


IN CO 


ID ID 


o in ^- id 


•3- CO 


CO "3- 


in cm 


CO CTi 


ro in 


■3" CM i-H 


in ro 


ro co 


CM i-h 


ro i-n 


i— i 






i— i 



nOHijio^iNwinij' 



cniDr-iomcooNLncMCM idh 

CM t-H I-H ID ro i-H ID 

i-H CM 



l_J 0J 

£ u 

^^ o 

w 
to 

to 
o 

en 
H 
O 



c 
.2 * 



OOOLDOO CD o 



ko j— * o Ovj c\j ro ocnj 



LDOLDO O O 



r^ OJ CTi <^> LD t— 1 



i— i en ro co rN nj- 
IN «3- o CM ro CO 


i-H <3- 
■3" i-H 


o*i in 

ID CM 
i-h CM 


O in 
O O 


ro ro co i— i 
co co en en 


en id 

CO CO 


CM CO 
«3" CM 
i-H i-H 


cm i-h o co in ro 
^t en in in <3* ro 

CM i-H CM i-h 


IN CM 

m co 

ID CM 


CO m 

O ID 

ro ro 


id en 

CO CM 

CM •—• 


co »3- cm en 

ID CO «3- i-h 


o ro 
i-h in 


«3- IN 

I-H IN 

ro 



oooooooooo oo 

«3lDiniDrOINOCTilDi3- «3"C0 

COOCOinr-ICMCOlDINlo cocn 
i-H I-H I-H in CM 



OcniNcnrocNji-HT-HCMiN mco 

coi-HcocoOLniNincniD cm 

MCvJHNr ICOOi-HCON. pr)^ 

CMCOCM COCMi-Hi-Hinin CNlCM 



in i uo i vt 



f— r0 

01 n 
3 3 



I— r— S- 



3 

O -X 

O r— 



115 



v£> CC lO lo •— i CO i 



(- 



£ g 






iO^O^K>ocoroi,Dn«Tn 

.— < .— < LO LO CM «— • «— < 



'^c\jrrN'^ir)N<X)co^' cji lo 

«3- co co .— ■ i— t hco 



>-* CC 
CM O 

co lo 



C 
U 

O 
a. ■ 

C/3 - 

K > 

H "5 
u 

Z ;f 

w = 

<! 

,-s O 

Cfl a 



I" 



2 o 



C^^OCMCOlDCO^JVD^CVJf^CVJiX) 

.— <t— i co lo <=r •— < cm «— < <— < 



lo co cm •— '^csjmncoc^rvricsjiH coo 
m cnj -— ■ r-- lo 



LO CO 

c\j o 

CO f-t 
CO «-H 

ro co 



r-*CMfo^j-cr>r— lo«— <r—i~H«3-r— ocm lo «3" CO'—* 

i— i cm Or— <d- c\j <— < r-H i— i oo 

i— < CM t— I CTi LO 
LO CNJ 

OOOLOOOOlOOLOOOOO oo <z> o 

CT^CnJ-— <CTt0^rO<^-«a-VOLOLD«— 'CO'— * LO O"^ i— < LO 

»— < co r— *3- on cm •— •<— ' <-h ud rH co ro CM «— t CM CO LO 

r- • «— < CM CM ,— . ,— I ,— . ,— I ,— < ,— I .-H |-H <— I I— I 

NrHrO<3-Lf)C^fOOi-TvrOir)«tl — CMO LO r-. 

NH^DODOr-iOinOCOHHiJH f— IN LO LO 

r— LOCTir— *3-«=J-0«3-OCO«3-COOLO O O >-h CT, 

•— <CMCMCM«— 'CMCM-— 'CMCOt— •«— 1CM>— < r— • CM I— < 



LO *d" 
LO LO 

CT> «-i 



«« 




A 


o a 


M 


V, 


EAN 

Ages o 


■ 

c 

I 




£l 


u 


o 

CO 


U * 


= 


_1 


Q 30 


B 




cn ^ 




e 


S * 


E 


_ 


— w 


< 


* 


Q E 






z 1 




e 


<£ 




1 


/^ t/i 










c 


u « 




.2 " 


u. ^ 




*£ 






«* 


>■ £ 






z « 




l» 


o 




5« 


- 






w 




M 


i, 




a — 


u- 




H £ 


c 






y: 






U 






U 






< 







O lo •— i O^r roco Oi m 



CMCM^TCM«— t«3-*3-cOLOOncO«3-CMLO 



r— cr> 


lo ro 


CO co 


co *st 




CO (X) 



2 CT> C> O O LO 



irj-LOO-tCOCM'-HOrO CT>C\J 
CM CM •— < <* LO 



e 

^ rHCsjOCM^OOlOOOHO^DrOMkO CTiCTt 

rm __,__, ro cm 



NtlTnOCOO^ONfNjN 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOO oo 
I LO LO CO CM 



C0C0LO^3-LOLDLOO^C0*X)CM« 

lo lo cm «3* *— i n ro c lo con cr* < 

CM •— < CM •— ■ ■— < i— ilD-^-i 



onro\ovo(\]r-icoai'3 - OLOcncTi •— • o 

CO»— 'VJD«3-r— fOCOCOLOCTir— in «^ N CO i— 1 

VD «a- C\J 1^ U) «t •- iCTir-i'^-^J-CTir— LO CMfO 

rHCM HCAJ^T HiHH^mHH CO CM 



CAco^o--<oroNir)crirocn^rvfO 
-3-co MfOH^oi^romn cm 



li_ 2: u_ s: 



«3" CM 
O UD 
O CO 



ro r— 
ro lo 



O CO 


CO LO 


LO LO 


O LO 


•— 1 


LO LO 



CM LO 
CNJ LO 

•— t LO 



116 



PART IV, Section 2 



District Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The District Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1982-83 of cases filed and 
disposed of in the State's district courts, including those 
handled by magistrates. 

When the plaintiff in a civil case requests, and the 
amount in controversy does not exceed $1,000, the case 
may be classified as a "small claim" civil action and 
assigned to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates also 
have certain criminal case jurisdiction. They may accept 
written appearance and waiver of trial, with plea of 
guilty, and enter judgment in accord with the schedule of 
fines promulgated by chief district judges for traffic 
offenses; and effective July 1, 1984, for boating, hunting 
and fishing offenses. Also, magistrates may accept guilty 
pleas in other misdemeanor cases where the sentence 
cannot be in excess of 30 days or $50 fine; and may hear 
and enter judgment in worthless check cases where the 
amount involved is $500 or less, and any prison sentence 
imposed does not exceed 30 days. 

Appeals from magistrates' judgments in both civil and 
criminal cases are to the district court, with a district 
court judge presiding. 

This section contains data on three major case classifi- 
cations in the district court division: civil cases, juvenile 
proceedings, and criminal cases. Civil cases include cases 
assigned to magistrates (small claims as defined above), 
domestic relations cases (chiefly concerned with annul- 
ments, divorces, alimony, custody and support of chil- 
dren), and "general civil" cases. Juvenile proceedings are 
classified in accordance with the nature of the offense or 
condition alleged in the petition which initiates the case. 
District court criminal cases are divided into motor vehi- 
cle cases (where the offense charged is defined in Chapter 
20 of the North Carolina General Statutes) and non- 
motor criminal cases. 

Consistent with previous years, the pie charts on the 
following page illustrate that district court criminal cases 
filed and disposed of in the 1982-83 year greatly out- 
numbered civil cases. Motor vehicle criminal cases con- 
stituted approximately fifty per cent of total filings and 
dispositions, and the non-motor vehicle criminal cases 
accounted for about twenty-seven per cent. As in past 
years, the greatest portion of district court civil filings 
and dispositions were small claims referred to magistrates. 

The large volume categories of criminal motor-vehicle 
and civil magistrate cases are not reported to AOC by 
case file numbers. Therefore, it is not possible to obtain, 
by computer processing, the numbers of pending cases as 
of a given date or the ages of cases pending and ages of 
cases at disposition. These categories of cases are pro- 
cessed through the courts faster than any others, thus 
explaining the decision not to allocate personnel and 
computer resource to reporting these cases in the detail 
that is provided for other categories of cases. 



Also, juvenile proceedings and hearings on commit- 
ment or recommitment of persons to the State's mental 
hospital facilities are not reported to AOC by case file 
numbers. 

Two tables are provided on juvenile proceedings; 
offenses and conditions alleged, and numbers of adjudi- 
catory hearings held. 

Data on district court hearings for mental hospital 
commitmentsand recommitments is reported in Part III, 
"Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents." 

Ages of district court cases pending on June 30, 1983, 
and ages of cases disposed of during 1982-83 are reported 
for the general civil and domestic relations and for the 
criminal non-motor vehicle case categories. 

The table for general civil and domestic relations cases 
shows that the median age of such cases which were 
pending on June 30, 1983, was 150 days, compared with a 
median age of 181 days for cases pending on June 30, 
1982. The median age of cases in this category at the time 
of disposition during 1982-83 was 68 days, compared 
with a median age of 67 days at the time of disposition 
during 1981-82. 

For district court non-motor vehicle criminal cases, the 
median age for cases pending on June 30, 1983, was 59 
days compared with a median age of 51 days for cases 
pending on June 30, 1982. The median age of cases in this 
category at the time of disposition during 1982-83 was 24 
days compared with a median age of 22 days at the time of 
disposition during 1981-82. 

The Statewide total district court filings during 1982- 
83, not including juvenile cases and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, was 1,445,571 cases, compared 
with 1,421,309 during 1981-82, an increase of 24,262 
( 1.7%). Most of this increase came in the motor vehicle 
criminal case category where filings in 198 1-82 amounted 
to 677,247 cases compared to 728,5 1 7 cases filed in 1 982- 
83, an increase of 5 1 ,270 (7.5%) cases. On the other hand, 
there was a decrease of 17,661 cases (4.2%) in the non- 
motor vehicle criminal case category. 

There also was a small decrease (2.9% ( ) in district court 
civil case filings, from a total of 325,886 in 1981-82 to 
316,539 in 1982-83. Most of this decrease was in civil 
magistrate filings, from 215,625 cases in 1981-82 to 
206,163 cases in 1982-83. In the domestic relations cate- 
gory, there was a small increase of 248 cases in 1982-83 
compared to the number in 1981-82. 

The changes (either increase or decrease) from year-to- 
year in the individual case categories are not unusual. The 
over-all trend for total district court case filings over the 
past several years has been upward, and this upward 
trend is reflected in the 1982-83 district court case filings. 



119 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1982-1983 



FILINGS 



CRIMINA1 MOI'OR VFHICl.E 



GENERAL. CIVIL 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 




CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE 



DISPOSITIONS 



CRIMINAL MOIOR VEHICLE 



GI NERAL CIVIL 



DOMI STIC RELATIONS 




CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 



Criminal cases dominate the district court caseload; 
78. \'/( of all district court filings and 77.5 of all district 
court dispositions during 1982-83 were criminal cases. 



120 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1973-1983 



2.0 



M 
I 
1 
I 

1 
O 

N 
S 



O 
F 



C 

A 

S 
I 

s 



1.5 



0.5 



0.0 




Depicted in this graph are all civil and criminal case 
filings and dispositions for the last decade, including 
traffic offenses and civil magistrate cases. The increase in 



filings and dispositions for 1982-83 is attributable to a 
7.6% increase in filings and a 4.3% increase in disposi- 
tions in motor vehicle cases. 



121 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CIVIL DISTRICT COURT CASES 

1973-1983 



400 



I 
H 

(• 

I 

S 

\ 

\ 

I) 

s 





\ 



300 



200 



100 




82-83 



District court civil filings and dispositions have decreased 

last two years: this is in contrast to the upward 

rends of the past decade. During 1982-83, general civil 



filings decreased by .3%, domestic relations filings in- 
creased by .4%, and civil magistrate filings decreased by 

4.4';. 



122 



GENERAL CIVIL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1982-1983 



80 



I 
II 

o 

t 

S 

A 

N 

1) 

S 



O 
I 



C 

A 
S 
I 
S 



60 



40 



FILINGS 
DISPOSITIONS 
END PENDING 



59,287 



60,688 



51,089 



5 1 ,444 



20 



27,888 



2: 


1,619 











GENERAL CIVIL 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



Dispositions for general civil and domestic relations 
cases outnumbered case filings during the 1982-83 year, 
resulting in a reduction in the number of cases pendingat 



the end of the year as compared to the number of cases 
pending at the beginning of the year. 



123 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983 

Filings 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 

Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



'ending 




General 


Domestic 


Total 


7 1 82 


Total 


Civil 


Relations 


Caseload 


24 


35 


5 


ill 


50 


^5 


294 


180 


114 


369 


133 


198 


96 


in; 1 


331 


138 


293 


160 


133 


431 


23 


84 


34 


50 


107 


221 


457 


138 


319 


678 


42 


107 


11 


96 


149 



656 



268 
27 

206 
21 
75 

597 



2,276 



416 

73 

1,005 

309 

1,803 



1,453 
169 

1,622 



710 



570 
572 
558 

1,700 



1,468 



596 
63 

309 
45 

200 

1,213 



4,124 



508 

111 

1,832 

673 

3,124 



3,967 
342 

4,309 



2,140 



1,079 
1,077 
1,211 

3,367 



624 



182 
23 
80 
25 
50 

360 



1,715 



208 
52 

385 
248 

893 



2,535 
101 

2,636 



874 



300 
416 
308 

1,024 



844 



414 
■11) 

229 
20 

150 

853 



2,124 



864 
90 

515 
66 

275 

1,810 



2,409 



300 

59 

1,447 

425 

2,231 



1,432 
241 

1,673 



6,400 



924 

184 

2,837 

982 

4,927 



5,420 
511 

5,931 



1,266 



779 
661 
903 

2,343 



2,850 



1,649 
1,649 
1,769 

5,067 





% Caseload 


Pending 


9sed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


48 


81.4 


11 


216 


58.5 


153 


266 


80.4 


65 


288 


66.8 


143 


65 


60.7 


42 


439 


64.7 


239 


103 


69.1 


46 



1,425 



1,232 



4,317 



588 

103 

1,655 

664 

3,010 



3,341 
291 

3,632 



2,309 



1,021 

888 

1,076 

2,985 



67.1 



622 


72.0 


56 


62.2 


331 


64.3 


40 


60.6 


183 


66.5 



68.1 



67.4 



63.6 
56.0 
58.3 
67.6 

61.1 



61.6 
56.9 

61.2 



81.1 



61.9 
53.8 
60.8 

58.9 



699 



242 
34 

184 
26 
92 

578 



499 


739 


234 


505 


1,238 


736 


59.4 


502 


808 


1,745 


790 


955 


2,553 


1,830 


71.7 


723 


75 


130 


32 


98 


205 


126 


61.5 


79 


894 


1,510 


659 


851 


2,404 


1,625 


67.6 


779 



2,083 



336 

81 

1,182 

318 

1,917 



2,079 
220 

2,299 



1 ] 5 


284 


73 


211 


399 


299 


74.9 


100 


179 


759 


211 


548 


938 


769 


82.0 


169 


343 


748 


419 


329 


1,091 


900 


82.5 


191 


73 


349 


1/1 


178 


422 


341 


80.8 


81 



541 



628 
761 
693 

2,082 



District 8 

Greene 
lenoir 
Kayne 

District Totals 



35 
585 

1,591 

2,211 



125 
1,444 
2,158 

3,727 



6 

615 
957 

1,578 



11') 

829 

1,201 

2,149 



160 
2,029 
3,749 

5,938 



121 

1,494 
2,571 

4,186 



75.6 
73.6 
68.6 

70.5 



39 
535 

1,178 

1,752 



124 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 

Filings 





Pending 




General 


Domestic 


Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/82 


Total 


Civil 


Relations 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


District 9 


















Franklin 


177 


374 


254 


120 


551 


377 


68.4 


174 


Granville 


143 


354 


127 


227 


497 


342 


68.8 


155 


Person 


172 


383 


155 


228 


555 


402 


72.4 


153 


Vance 


335 


651 


136 


515 


986 


775 


78.6 


211 


Warren 


110 


259 


77 


182 


369 


297 


80.5 


72 



District Totals 



937 



2,021 



749 



1,272 



2,958 



2,193 



74.1 



765 



District 10 
Wake 



4,063 



7,543 



4,968 



2,575 



11,606 



7,559 



65.1 



4,047 



District 11 

Harnett 468 1,337 514 823 

Johnston 657 1,337 759 578 

Lee 535 929 611 318 

District Totals 1,660 3,603 1,884 1,719 



1,805 
1,994 
1,464 

5,263 



1,476 
1,488 
1,043 

4,007 



81.8 
74.6 
71.2 

76.1 



329 

506 
421 

1,256 



District 12 



Cumberland 


2,840 


5,010 


1,265 


3,745 


7,850 


4,623 


58.9 


3,227 


Hoke 


120 


315 


138 


177 


435 


326 


74.9 


109 


District Totals 


2,960 


5,325 


1,403 


3,922 


8,285 


4,949 


59.7 


3,336 


District 13 



















Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 

District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



154 
262 
335 

751 



1,592 



432 



131 
702 

833 



500 

675 

1,051 

2,226 



3,147 



1,642 



356 
870 

1,226 



297 
252 
408 

957 



1,836 



613 



12 3 
524 

647 



203 
423 
643 

1,269 



1,311 



1,029 



233 
346 

579 



654 

937 

1,386 

2,977 



4,739 



2,074 



487 
1,572 

2,059 



528 
594 
909 

2,031 
3,200 
1,654 



319 
708 

1,027 



80.7 
63.4 
65.6 

68.2 



67.5 



79.7 



65.5 
45.0 

49.9 



126 
343 
477 

946 



1,539 



420 



168 
864 

1,032 



Robeson 


824 


2,053 


978 


1,075 


2,877 


1,900 


66.0 


977 


Scotland 


285 


531 


206 


325 


816 


533 


65.3 


283 


District Totals 


1,109 


2,584 


1,184 


1,400 


3,693 


2,433 


65.9 


1,260 


District 17A 


















Caswell 


89 


245 


55 


190 


334 


244 


73.1 


90 


Rockingham 


369 


1,278 


490 


788 


1,647 


1,266 


76.9 


381 


District Totals 


458 


1,523 


545 


978 


1,981 


1,510 


76.2 


471 


District 17B 


















Stokes 


133 


243 


68 


175 


376 


278 


73.9 


98 


Surry 


408 


1,014 


563 


451 


1,422 


1,005 


70.7 


417 


District Totals 


541 


1,257 


631 


626 


1,798 


1,283 


71.4 


515 


District 18 



















Guilford 



2,798 



7,692 



4,366 



3,326 



10,490 



6,912 



65.9 



3,578 



1 25 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983 



Burke 
Caldwell 

ct Totals 

^strict 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 111- 
Sastor 



Filings 



District 19A 


Pending 

7/1/82 


Total 


General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/83 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 


734 
543 


1,514 
1,140 


626 
419 


888 
721 


2,248 
1,683 


1,395 

1,313 


62.1 
78.0 


853 
370 


District Totals 


1,277 


2,654 


1,045 


1,609 


3,931 


2,708 


68.9 


1,223 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 
Randolph 


209 
311 


296 
1,059 


248 
302 


4:-; 
757 


505 
1,370 


364 
1,089 


72.1 
79.5 


141 
281 


District Totals 


520 


1,355 


550 


805 


1,875 


1,453 


77.5 


422 


District 20 


















Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


180 

422 
723 
475 
536 


304 

788 
596 
644 
987 


91 
368 
167 
358 
426 


213 

420 
429 
286 
561 


484 
1,210 
1,319 
1,119 
1,523 


291 
752 
601 
734 
1,080 


60.1 
62.1 
45.6 
65.6 
70.9 


193 
458 
718 
385 
443 



District Totals 2,336 3,319 1,410 1,909 

District 21 

Forsyth 2,168 6,482 3,862 2,620 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 1,094 3,164 1,329 1,835 

District 23 



5,655 



8,650 



4,258 



475 
670 
804 

1,949 



8,043 



1,124 



1,209 


545 


1,362 


747 


2,211 


1,048 



4,782 



11,071 



2,401 



2,340 



6,039 



51," 



615 
1,163 

2,442 



5,032 



1,789 



1,684 
2,032 
3,015 

6,731 



19,114 



3,525 



3,458 



6,382 



2,960 



1,140 
1,417 
2,176 

4,733 



14,544 



2,444 



61.1 



73.8 



69.5 



67.7 
69.7 
72.2 

70.3 



76.1 



69.3 



2,197 



2,268 



68 


232 


70 


151' 


300 


231 


77.0 


69 


429 


1,453 


537 


916 


1,882 


1,383 


73.5 


499 


108 


252 


82 


170 


360 


156 


43.3 


204 


489 


1,227 


640 


58 7 


1,716 


1,190 


69.3 


526 



1,298 



Al leghany 




38 


13] 


55 


76 


169 


116 


68.6 


53 


Ashe 




104 


208 


77 


i n 


312 


217 


69.5 


95 


Wilkes 




362 


1,235 


742 


493 


1,597 


1,279 


80.1 


318 


Yadkin 




124 


327 


128 


yn 


451 


333 


73.8 


118 


District 


Totals 


628 


1,901 


1,002 


899 


2,529 


1,945 


76.9 


584 


District 


24 


















I /e rj 




96 


245 


L26 


119 


341 


224 


65.7 


117 


Madison 




8 7 


115 


39 


75 


202 


129 


63.9 


73 


Mitchell 




59 


176 


63 


L13 


235 


172 


73.2 


6 3 


Watauga 




219 


555 


326 


229 


774 


533 


68.9 


241 


Yancey 




79 


157 


50 


97 


236 


157 


66.5 


79 


District 


Totals 


540 


1 ,248 


614 


634 


1,788 


1,215 


67.9 


573 


District 


25 



















544 
615 
839 



1,5 



4,570 



1,081 



26 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 









Jl 


u!y 


1, 1982 - 


June 30, 


1983 












Pending 

7/1/82 








Filings 






Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 




District 27B 


Total 






General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 




Pending 
6/30/83 


Cleveland 

Lincoln 


417 
184 


975 
560 






320 

175 


655 
385 




1,392 
744 


1,041 

574 


74.8 
77.1 


35] 
170 


District Totals 


601 


1,535 






495 


1,040 




2,136 


1,615 


75.6 


521 


District 28 

























Buncombe 1,178 2,998 1,077 1,921 4,176 2,972 71.2 1,204 

District 29 

Henderson 566 866 158 708 1,432 786 54.9 646 

McDowell 182 457 115 342 639 494 77.3 145 



786 


54.9 


494 


77.3 


105 


66.0 


524 


65.6 


336 


66.4 



Polk 40 119 55 64 159 105 66.0 54 

Rutherford 227 572 160 412 799 524 65.6 275 

Transylvania 188 318 81 237 506 336 66.4 170 

District Totals 1,203 2,332 569 1,763 3,535 2,245 63.5 1,290 

District 30 

Cherokee 186 217 6 211 403 176 43.7 227 

Clay 27 77 16 61 104 66 63.5 38 

Graham 28 91 21 70 119 76 63.9 43 

Haywood 303 661 244 417 964 566 58.7 398 



1 76 


43.7 


66 


63.5 


76 


63.9 


566 


58.7 


332 


67.9 


265 


60.9 


173 


57.3 



Jackson 114 375 170 205 489 332 67.9 157 

Macon 141 294 139 155 435 265 60.9 170 

Swain 144 158 62 96 302 173 57.3 129 

District Totals 943 1,873 658 1,215 2,816 1,654 58.7 1,162 

State Totals 53,313 110,376 51,089 59,287 163,689 112,182 68.5 51,507 



127 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT GENERAL CIVIL 
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 

1982-1983 



OTHER 



VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 




JUDGE 



CLERK 



JURY 

.4% 



The majority of civil district cases, excluding civil magis- 
trate cases, are disposed by judges. Only 490 jury trials 



were held in district court for civil cases during the 1982- 
83 year. 



128 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 









General Civil 






Domestic Relations 




Total 








Voluntary 










Voluntary 




Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


48 


1 





3 


8 





26 





1 


5 


4 


216 


16 





20 


61 


4 


96 








12 


7 


266 


25 





88 


20 


18 


88 





2 


20 


5 


288 


53 





48 


58 


6 


98 








21 


4 


65 


5 





7 


4 


2 


34 





2 


8 


3 


439 


37 


2 


60 


37 


5 


268 





1 


?? 


7 


103 


8 


1 


9 


5 


1 


71 





n 


7 


1 



1,425 



145 



235 



193 



36 



681 



95 



31 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



622 
56 

331 
40 

183 

1,232 



736 
1,830 

126 
1,625 

4,317 



588 

103 

1,655 

664 

3,010 



3,341 
291 

3,632 



299 
769 
900 
341 

2,309 



1,021 

888 

1,076 

2,985 



71 


12 


62 


57 


9 


11 





4 


8 


1 


32 





39 


6 


9 


13 





3 


1 


1 


25 





18 


17 


3 



152 



626 



359 



635 
31 

666 



329 



12 



12 



13 



126 



617 



219 



6 1,058 
1 20 

7 1,078 



37: 



519 



247 



321 
29 

350 



248 



23 



91 


2 


46 


91 


4 


267 


8 


275 


235 


25 


14 


1 


10 


11 


8 


254 


1 


286 


182 


8 



45 



81 


2 


73 


74 


4 


25 





13 


11 





169 


2 


54 


8/1 


11 


84 


9 


79 


78 






15 



24 


2 


29 


12 


4 


74 





8,0 


31 


14 


106 


2 


244 


189 


7 


125 





19 


16 


7 



32 



51 


5 


115 


46 





56 


5 


138 


99 


3 


86 





95 


58 


1 



382 


1 


1 


18 


9 


30 








1 


1 


217 





4 


9 


15 


21 











1 


111 





3 


1 


5 



761 



2,056 



1,914 



1,250 
178 

1,428 



1,255 



16 



11 



29 



284 



165 



63 

in 

73 



•16 



31 



437 





1 


39 


25 


784 





9 


146 


81 


59 





1 


17 


5 


776 





5 


82 


31 



142 



312 





3 


28 


11 


50 








4 





1,202 





2 


89 


42 


350 





6 


44 


14 



67 




16 

16 



214 








10 


4 


550 





3 


16 


1 


321 





6 


19 


6 


170 








1 


3 



14 



650 





6 


22 


26 


541 





5 


?2 


19 


800 


2 


7 


25 


2 



293 



10 



348 



203 



1,991 



18 



69 



47 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



121 
1,494 
2,571 

4,186 



11 





4 


1 


4 


174 


8 


277 


167 


10 


326 


14 


371 


552 


4 


511 


22 


652 


720 


18 



92 

750 

1,057 

1,899 



4 
10 
26 

40 





94 

212 

306 



5 
1 
7 

13 



129 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 





Total 






General Ci 


vil 








Domestic Re 


lations 














Vol 


luntary 










Voluntary 






Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


District 9 




























■ 


377 


174 


(1 


16 




49 


7 


116 





1 




11 


3 


Granvi 1 le 


342 


47 


1 


32 




4 1 


1 


163 





31 




2] 


5 


r e'"^:r 


402 


i':' 


1 


59 




37 


i' 


217 





3 




lb 





'. ance 


775 


57 





38 




(.1 


2 


276 










37 


304 


a a ■" r "e r 


297 


46 


2 


1.1 




16 





191 


1 


2 




15 


10 



District Totals 



2,193 



392 



159 



204 



12 



963 



37 



99 



322 



District 10 
rtake 



7,559 



1,910 



2! 



1,626 1,261 



73 



2,438 



196 



17 



District 11 

Harnett 
Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



1,476 


208 


6 


140 


230 


3 


447 


2 


6 


62 


372 


1,488 


360 


10 


213 


236 


19 


480 


2 


1(1 


125 


33 


1,043 


173 


6 


298 


187 


58 


282 





5 


32 


2 



4,007 



741 



22 



651 



653 



1,209 



21 



219 



407 



District 12 



Cumberland 
Hoke 


4,623 
326 


444 

30 


8 



380 
80 


288 
7 


3 

v:, 


3,131 
72 


1 



32 
2 


302 
6 


'A 
94 


District Totals 


4,949 


474 


8 


460 


295 


38 


3,203 


1 


34 


308 


128 


District 13 

























Bladen 528 

Brunswick 594 

Columbus 909 

District Totals 2,031 



75 6 

71 

130 17 



276 



23 



160 

50 

44 

294 



70 
76 

124 

270 



4 
5 
5 

14 



182 
363 
482 

1,027 



21 
26 
64 

111 



District 


14 


Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 

Orange 

District Totals 



3,200 
1,654 



319 
708 

1,027 



919 



268 



582 



i;", 



395 26 



151 13 210 222 38 



37 4 42 11 11 

231 5 83 105 22 



116 33 



1,175 1 



737 



191 
240 

431 



1 12 



60 



13 

40 

33 



28 



184 



wr'.w '/• 



Robeson 


1,900 
533 


280 
83 


6 

1 


264 
106 


242 

41 


49 
6 


986 
272 


o 



10 

5 


60 
8 


14 



District Totals 


2,433 


363 


7 


370 


283 


44 


1,258 





15 


60 


14 


District 17A 
























Caswel 1 


244 
1,266 


25 

4 4 



4 


20 

281 


11 

111 


4 



141 

695 






7 

4 


4 
50 


11 

25 


rotal s 


1,510 


140 


4 


301 


122 


5 


856 





1" 


54 


36 


























S t o V ■■ s 
Surry 


278 
1,005 


20 

1 32 


1 



44 

347 


40 
97 







144 
386 




1 




1 


27 

40 


1 
1 






152 


1 


44 1 


137 





531 


1 


1 


67 


2 






























6,912 



1,02? 



22 1,627 



1,041 



50 



2,889 



33 



172 



46 



130 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 
Rowan 

District Totals 









Gi 


fneral Ci 


v il 




Total 










Voluntary 




ispositions 


Judge 


Jury 




Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


1,395 


153 


3 




187 


214 


2 


1,313 


170 


2 




166 


189 


1 



Domestic Relations 



2,708 



323 



353 



403 



Judge Jury 



718 
673 

1,391 



Clerk 

5 
5 

10 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



101 
105 



206 



Other 

10 
2 

12 



District 19B 

Montgomery 364 

Randolph 1,089 

District Totals 1,453 



179 

74 

253 



16 

142 

158 



5Q 
73 

132 



97 

681 

778 




1 i 

13 



7 
61 



1 
39 

40 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



291 
752 
601 
734 
1,080 

3,458 



20 


5 


29 


25 


1 


140 


8 


126 


66 


14 


55 


2 


89 


52 


4 


122 


7 


152 


144 


10 


161 


9 


148 


153 


2 



498 



31 



544 



440 



31 



193 
361 
334 
245 
553 



1,< 






6 


12 





1 





2 3 


13 





18 


4 


7 





3 


4') 


2 


2 


7 


39 


6 


3 


34 


163 


28 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 

Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 



6,382 



231 
1,383 

156 
1,190 

2,960 



116 

217 

1,279 

333 

1,945 



869 



30 1,663 1,384 



20 



27 





19 


22 


'i 


149 


11 


204 


140 


2 


18 





8 


20 


4 


142 


5 


259 


180 


11 


336 


16 


490 


362 


17 


24 





11 





9 


3? 





22 


26 


6 


176 


10 


350 


190 


44 


40 


2 


45 


45 


4 



272 



12 



428 



261 



63 



2,154 



142 

801 

63 

498 

1,504 



64 
107 

440 
174 

785 



24 






3 





13 





4 


1 


9 



29 



185 



175 




21 
60 
21 

102 



43 



15 3 

61 2 

23 16 

76 9 



30 



3 

4 
2 

17 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 



224 
129 
172 
533 
157 

1,215 



22 
25 
11 
39 
19 

116 







33 



2 5 

30 

104 

7 

2 179 





13 
25 

149 

13 

200 



',3 
2 
1 
4 

24 



95 
69 
56 
201 
70 

491 





9 

20 

2 3 
13 

65 



21 
3 

2 P. 
7 

11 

70 



District 25 

Burke 
Caldwel 1 
Catawba 

District Totals 



1,140 
1,417 
2,176 

4,733 



108 


2 


131 


297 


3 


179 


1 


318 


266 





217 


8 


460 


160 


127 



504 



11 



909 



723 



130 



528 

612 

1,078 

2,218 



6 

l 3 
8 

19 



60 


5 


35 





66 


51 



1 6 1 



56 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 



14,544 



2,444 



2,636 



202 



11 2,420 



22 



187 



1,932 



192 



65 



7,243 



1,713 



4 3 



180 



96 



1 1 



25 



131 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 









July 1 


, 1982 - 


June 30, 


1983 














Total 
Dispositions 






General Ci 


vil 






Domestic Rela 


lions 




District 27B 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Other 


CI eve 1 an d 

Lincoln 


l.;"Ul 
574 


136 
85 


10 

1 


81 
75 


93 
43 


1? 
1 


634 
328 


1 



2 
3 


69 
36 


3 
2 


Di strict Totals 


1,615 


221 


11 


156 


136 


13 


962 


1 


5 


105 


5 


District 28 
























Buncombe 


2,972 


442 


28 


326 


289 


13 


1,581 


') 


137 


139 


12 


District 29 
























Henderson 
McDowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 


786 
494 
105 
524 
336 


80 
56 
16 
41 

42 


3 



8 

3 


22 
28 

14 
51 
17 


75 
38 
15 
48 

34 


7 


3 
8 

? 


505 
343 
45 
339 
210 










9 
6 

1 



69 
20 
LO 
28 
26 


16 
3 
2 

2 


District Totals 


2,245 


235 


14 


1 32 


210 


20 


1,442 





16 


153 


23 


District 30 
























Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

"aeon 

Swain 


176 
66 
76 

566 
332 
265 
173 


6 
9 
4 
72 
33 
41 
39 



1 









6 

4 

64 

;'o 

36 

9 



'. 
9 
54 
73 
31 
?? 


1 
2 
1 
6 
6 
2] 
5 


133 

25 

46 

328 

152 

107 

70 



2 




1 




12 
6 

9 


1 
1 


6 
7 

11 
25 
22 
12 
20 


18 
3 
1 
8 
17 
15 
7 


District Totals 


1,654 


204 


1 


148 


194 


42 


861 


3 


29 


103 


69 


State Totals 


112,182 


16,986 


428 


18,536 


14,426 


1,118 


53,511 


62 


674 


4,441 


2,000 



132 



J^ O ^ IT) tD O <J- CM 



en c\j oo r-^ lo lo 



LO CXJ N O 

.—i «— i co 



C/2 

H 

P 
o 
u 

H 
U 

K 
H 

** oo 

W 2 
3C - 

S = 

< i 

U Q 



LO O CXt "3" CO 



O *t CXJ CXJ *^f 



roo^OH oo 
lo <3- «— i in lo 

r- 1 t— I PO 



J- ™ *"* ' 






ll 

o a 

H .2 

a 



lo lo o lo o o o 



co <"*"> cri lo «3- cri co 



co <x> lo co lo cr> oo 
«3- «-h lo CO lo ro o 

CM CM CXI *d- "— • 



CO CT> O^ LO CM CO 



O LO O LO o 



i— i r^ r-» lo 

CM LO LO CM 
<3" Cn CO 



o o o o 



r-i CO 



i—i CM CT\> 0O 
<Ti LD <Ti O 
CXI CTi "=f 



LO o o o 



cr> «3- ro 



»-* CO CTi 

.-hi-*- co 



i-H CO 



.—I .— t CO 



ro ^j- ^j- ct^ o 
i^ ^j- i-H <^- CO 

i— * LO LO CXI «3- 



o o o o 



i-l o 

LO LD 


.-1 LD 
LD LO 


LD 


CNJ 

LO 


LO "3" CTi P*v 
LD CO t^ CO 


CNJ 

00 


CJi 


ro 

in 


LO 


<* 

LD 


o 
r^ 


CO ro 

LO LO 


LO 


■5f CO 


r--. 


LT) 
CO 


OJ 
LO 


r- .— i 


cm ro 


o 


. — ( 


LON-t^ 


1 — 


rt 


LO 


co 


CM 


<=± 


ro cm 


00 


O C3N 


co 


oi 


ro 


r-~ ro 

ON CM 

i — i i— i 


LD "d" 

o co 

CNJ CNJ 


Ol 

«3 


CNJ 
oo 
. — i 


LO LO CNJ Ol 

co en co i-i 

r-4 r—4 4— 4 CM 


CNJ 

o 

CNJ 


LO 

CNJ 


CD 
CNJ 


CM 


LD 

■3" 


00 

r, , 


LO CM 

CO ^1" 
i— 4 i— 4 


LD 

ro 


.-4 LD 
LO CO 


o 

ro 


00 


- 


CM LO 
CM LO 
LD 


r-t O 

co «=t 
co 


ro 

QJ 


(XI 
CO 
CNJ 


LD O LO LO 

co co cm cm 

r-. co t-i ld 


i— i 
ro 


CO 

OO 

in 


ro 
O 
. — i 


to 
in 

LD 


LD 
LD 


o 

o 


•a- ai 

CO CM 


CM 

ro 

LO 


OlLOOq- 

cm r^ on co 


OO 

o 

ro 



i-H «-l -sf 



O £ 



•a 

B 

cs 

f> 

© 
CO. 

SO 

c 

■5 

c 

QJ 

6, 



< 

w 
u 

H 

W 

© 

Q 

Q 
Z 

•< M 

s < 

w 

w 

o 
ti. 
o 

GO 

w 

o 



o*=j-CMOcocoro LO 



CO O LO 0> LO LO ON 



et fO 

•S »e 

c "- 

o ae 



* •< 



■ < 



0J> 

■3.S 
21 

H a* 

a, 



O O O O LO O LO 



CXI^-«-*COC\JOL£) CO 

in ro j>. Oi >-' cnj n lo 

c\jcor^<xiLOLO«3- ro 

CXI CXI «— i CXI CM C\J CXI CM 



lo ro CTi co lo lo 



r^ o~> lo lo -cj- «— i 



irtNNt roo o> 



O LD CM •— 1 


ai 


INLOCO ■* 


^t 


LD O 


LO CM CM CO 


CM 


r^- iH O ld 


LD 


'S- -a- 



CM i-4 LD CO 



CO CM 
O CO 



WOCM* CO 



LD ON O CM 



^" CM 

CO i-l 


ro 
ro 


r-- 


LO 
CO 




CO 
. — 1 


l-O 
CM 


o:< 


LD 
CM 


LO 


LO O 
ON CNJ 


ro 

LD 
CO 


OJ 
CM 


CD 


CM 

ro 


ro 


LO 

00 

OJ 


O 

LO 


ON 

O 


CD *3" 
ON <a- 


CT. 
CO 
CM 


O LO 


LO 


o 


O 


LO 


LO 


o 


o 


O 


CN 


O O 


LO 


CO 


O 


o 


ON 


CO. 


o 


o 


o 


O 


CO 


CM LO 
LO CO 

•-I CNJ 


LO 


CNJ 

ID 


ON 


CM 
CM 


LO 

i — 1 
CO 


1— ( 


. — 1 

LO 

CM 




o , 


o r- 

CM LO 

co ro 


ro 
CM 
CM 


CO 

ro 


CM 
CM 


ro 

lO 

T-1 


4—4 

CM 


'J 

LO 


CM 

CO 


ro 

CD 


O 


CD 
CO 


o 

OJ 


LO LO 


«tf 


LO 


CO 


CT> 


ro 


CT, 


LO 


CM 


M 


co co 


CO 


CD 


LD 


CM 


rH 


ro 


co 


LO 


ot 


^4 


r*^ 


O LD 

co co 

CM CM 


O CM 

r-^ co 


LD 
CO 
CM 


O 


CTl 

r^ 

CO 


^3- 
CM 


CM 
CD 
CO 


O 
ro 


CO 
CO 

ro 


C^ CM 
CO LO 

^d- LO 


OO 
LO 

ro 


CTi 
UN 
CM 


LO 

CD 

ro 


CO- 
CTi 
CM 


CO 
CM 

CO 


CO 

CO 
CM 


CM CI CM CO 
CO O CO LO 


o 

CO 


CM «=t 
«3- CO 
CM 


^1- LD 
CO CM 


CM 
ON 


oo 

LO 


CM 

o 

LO 


ro 

CM 

r*~ 


r^ 


CT 


ro 

OJ 

o 


LD 4—1 
CO CO 
CO 


CM 

oo 

4— | 


CO 
ro 


ON 


OO 

o 


CO- 
CM 
CM 


OO 

oo 

CM 


o 

OO 


CO 
CD 


. — 1 

CO 


CO 


i — i 
LO 



-i^ l/l 




oo 


c 


■ 


CO 




' 


<* 


-^ C C 


+-> 




o 


+-> 






+-> 




U (T3 CO 


<J 


■4-J 


+-> +-> 


u 


+-> 


■4-J 


o 


4J 


= ■>-> B 




u 


s- ■— en 




CJ 


OJ o 




U 


C C 4-> O •-- 


S- 




o c .— c 


S- 




!- C O 


s_ 




at ra •[- lo 3 3 


+-> 


s_ 


4- .4— CD "4- 


4~> 


s- 


oj aj -4- 




s- 


"o 3 s_ oj ai cr a" 




+J 


3 QJ +J s — c 


LO 


4-J 


-4-> > . — +j 


LO 


+J 


E o t- S- -4-1 LO s- 




LO 


T3 -O S- S- LO 




t/1 


S- 413 E 4-> 






(Or ZJ ft3 (T3 (T3 OJ 


CO 




OJ >N H3 ^ fO 


a 




fl S. (D-r- 


Q 




<_> O C_J O O Q. o_ 




ro 


misi- 3 




CO 


UOCLQ. 




CO 



•r- 3 O C fD 

QoO</) 



CD QJ 

^ a. 



•1— ^/l 



<ll 


40 


O 


rn 




4- 


4- 


C 


+J 




+ j 


4-' 


S- 


i — 


s- 


S- 


0i 


ru 


11 


n 


o; 


J- 


on 


^ 



133 



■-"CM CO 



I 00 CO CM 



H 

P 

c 
u 

H 

U 

— 

ft! 
H 
v: 

M 

Q 

S 

H 
Z 

C/3 

< 

u 

Z S 

o £ 

■^ o 
•1 "> 

— A 

ft! = 
H 

a 



e 
a 



DX 

< 

B 
99 



- 














— 


£ 


co lo cm 


O 


OOIN 


lc 


LO LD Cn CM CO 


E 
C 


co cm ^r 


o 


•— ' CO CM 

co 


CM 


<3- CM CM r^ CM 




" 


























s 














a. 


w. 












-i 


t»l 


^r co co 


Lf) 


CM LO O 


r*~ 


CM CO CO r-^ CM 


2 


i — r^ *g- 


Ol 


•—> r-~ CO 


LO 


LD LO LT> <— < »=i- 



u 


oc 


t— l i-H LO 


00 


CM CO CO 


a? 


LO LO r~- cn CM 


en 


a 




LO i^- CM 




■-10103 


co 


«t ^t oi n n 


CO 






«3 


■—I CM 


«tf 






B 
















tt 
















< 


















g 


«3- r-. CO 


en 


r-~ cn *3- 


O 


r-^ en ■—< cm lo 


in 




i— I CO CO 


CO 


co o co 


CO 


o co i~» r-» r-» 


. — ( 






,ivio co 


1-H 


CTl ■—! 




CM i— 1 cm >a- ■— ' 


CO 



■o at 



£< 



2 o 

C Q. 

t- JS 
Q 



o c o o 



O vi 



_e J. 



LO CM CO CO 



O LO 


CM 


NCOrH 


Cn LO 


CM 


■H CO 



o o o o o 



y:f)WHo cn 



^H CO LO 


LO 


,-H «d- ,-H 


LO 


NCJMU">N 


CO 


CM CO r^ 


CO 


t\J Oi N 


CO 


r-^ «3- o r — cn 


oi 


o co o 


CT: 


■-H *3" LO 


1 — ' 


co co «3- r-^ cm 


■— t 



ro co cx> ro ro ko 



CO CM ^3- 
«- LO CO 


<3 

o-. 
«3 


■3- t-iCO 

LO CM 

CM 


■J':; 
CM 


CM I— 1 CM CM ■— ' 


COrvrH 

r^ co co 


LO 
CM 


*3" ■-< i-H 

O I-H 
■-H CO 


LO 


r^ cn co co lo 

nm H<3" rH 



LO O •— ' 

co co i-i 

rHWW 


LO 

LO 


CO LO 
LO •— < 
CM 


Ol 
LO 

CM 


incoN 

CO CO ^3- 


cn co «a- 

•-H i* O 


r-- 


CM LO 
O CM 


CM 


l"» LO i-l 
00 LO l-H 



LO r^ CM 


"3 


r-~ lo 


CM 


"d" ^3" 00 


CO LO CO 


00 


CM CO 


LO 


CO O CO 


cn co lo 


CO 


l~» CM 


cn 


CO «=3 LO 



co co en 

•=f LO LO 


o 

LO 


en en 

LO ^3- 




O CO LO 
LO LO LO 


LO "3" i-H 


co 


LO LO 


r~. 


CM CO CO 


r^ i-H lo 
co en en 


CM 

r-- 


O i-H 

co en 


«3 


LO CO LO 
i-H ■— 1 CM 



LO 00 CO 


r-~ 


CO LO 


O-l 


co •*!- en 


r-~ 00 ^3" 


o 


CM CM 


^- 


cm en o 


>=f «a- o 


O 


LO CO 


cn 


LO LO en 



co co en o 



^H CO LO 

cm 1=3- r-~ 


o 


LO CM 

"3- CM 

co 


to 

CO 


CM i-H CM 

cn co 


lo «a- ^3- 

lo i-H en 


•3- 


CO «3- 

CTi i-H 


CM 


rs\oN 

HN"3 



c 

Q 
Q 

< 



U 
- 
< 

z 

w 

o 

x 



® ~ 



■c 
at 

c 

c 






LfnD O^ 


o 


1-4 r-l O 


r j 


ld ir> go oo i— < 


r^ o r^ 


kO 


m rooi 


ro 


roronrOH 



u"nno o 



m *j- *r *z- 



OJ ^£> C7^ 



C7l (^ r— 

UJ Z 3 



i-H i— i ro 



i— t LO CO 


o 


00 <3" OD 


o 


LO .—1 LO O CM 


LO ■—■ CO 


LO 


^H CO LO 


CM 


LO LO LO CT> CO 


i— I CM i-H 


Lf) 


CM CO 


LO 





>W 


"3 


< 


LO CO CM 


^T 


•— 1 ^3- CM 


W- 




lo o r~~ 


-I 


O ^h O 


o 


S 




CO CO CO 


CO 


i-H i-H CM 


V 
























iX 


B 


< 


CO LO CO 


o 


LO CO LO 


< 


«^ 


o o co 


o 


O lo cn 




*" 


CO CO LO 


r^ 


NMO 



cn ld co c.j 

CO CO r-* LD 

lo i-H r-» 



C — -r- 



<u o c: 

0) C >1 
t. O) JC 



O O O O LO 



■3-N rococo 

^r <3 co coco 
lo cn r^. co o 

CM i-H CM CM CM 



•r- O 



-X > O CU CD 

C C LO (J S- 

ro co 1- c i_ 

L I- (y fo fD 

Ll_ CJ3 o_ S- 3 



•I- L0 



LO •—! LO 

r-- co ld 

■-I CM ■— 1 


CO 
LO 


CO CO 
■=3- ^3" 

cn 


ID 

CO 

cn 


HION 

co cn co 


^3- 
io 

CO 


O O O 


D 


o o 


o 


o o o 


o 


r-- co cn 

NOW 


o 


00 1=3- 

lo r-N 


LO 


CO CM LO 

r-- »-H cm 


CM 
CO 



co «3- oo cn 



Ch <jd •— i 

OJ O CM 
CO LT> *& 



«d- cn 

ro ro 
ro ro 



<U O CD O -r- 



OJ i— I i-H 



qidpn ro 



VD CON 

c\j «3- r^ 



ZJ O Q *r- 





U LO 




•r- 3 


c 


S -Q 


fll 


<A E 


-o 


C =1 


lO 


3 »— 




S- O 


CO 


CO o 



134 



ro i_n co 



l^N CM 



C/3 

H 

as 
P 
o 
u 

H 
U 

a 

H 

00 

w * 

K 

H 

g 

w 
en 



in uo 


o 


«a- r--. 


i— t 


o o 


CO <f 


a i 


as c\j 


CM 


CM r- 



c * 

< 



^3 M 






^ 


fc. 




o 


o. 


^ 


3 




H J2 


u 


O 






Q 


en 










Z 


O 








© 


a. 








f^ 










H 


5 








< 


0) 








^ 








A 


W 


U 








as 


>— 



m 






u 


C/5 

em 


Q 




4 




< 






ro 


en 

w 


-a 
e 

93 


u 

CXI 

c 




i/s 

SO 


£ 


Co 
00 


■3 

c 




OO 


o 


o 


0. 




© 







o 

E 




00 





.s 


< 




o- 


z 


•3 








< 










-J 








© 


l*=s] 


11 








> 


I/) 

US 




c 
.2 




^* 


u 




■6 


u 


u 







s 

2 


< 


j 
< 


OX 




e 


a* 


cs 


< 




0.- 


as 
< 


w 










z 








0£ 


w 






1b 


ES 

■5 


o 






1- 


c 

PL) 


u, 










o 










en 










w 










o 










< 











O ■-< ■-< 



E 

EC 



fT3 fO -r- 

<_) o 



CO kO 


ex. 


cri ro 


CM 


i-H CO 


en 


ro r^ 




CM 


r\j 


•— i 


C\J 



crt ro c\j 



LD O LO 



CNJ CM 


<tf 


IX) i-H 


r-- 


rvMNO>-i 


CM O 


C.S 


ro co 


«— • 


HLO^OUD 



ro o ro 



cr. cm 


■— < 


cr» «d- 


ro 


UD tHfOO^t 


.— t r- 


CTi 


00 O 


en 


rOCNJ LON O 



«=j" LO 


OS 


U0 ID 


.--< 


LO OS 


LO 


LO CM 


OS OS 


OJ 


r- -st 


CM 


O- o 


in 


«3- CO 


•-" ■=*• 


LD 


CM CO 


LO 


i-H OS 


O 


.-H LO 



CM CO 


o 


■-" o 


r— < 


CO LO ^" CO •— ' 


r-^ cm 


O 


CO CM 


US 


O CO .—1 CM CM 


r- r-~ 


LO 


i— t r^ 


CO 


CM <=J- CO >a- LO 



«— ■ ^JD CO 



OlOO ooo OOO LOOO O OOO OOU0 lOOOOO 

0*> m t~~- •— < r^ cm >X)Cr>cri roLnr— ud * — • * — » « — i Ocx><3- oroororo 

unuOLn mm in Ln<^f«=d- coin in <x) r^r--r^- ro«3-uD lo*X)C0vo , X) 

LDCMCM 'd-t-HCO <r. i— i UD N CO OD ro COOi— < OOCO O O CO o^ m 

COOtLT) 00r^« 1 O OvOr^. ^-«^J-<=f CT> ^IDiO r^-CMO (n COOLOLf) 

ro t— < cm CMkoro lo kD *— < T»=j-^- cm ko *& in *— i cm r-- -— »co r^ ijo c\j 

t-H^H^H ^h^H^-I r-t ^H ^h^-,,-, ,_, .^^h^, ro^H^H r- 1 i— I CM CM CM 



os oo 


( — 


O CO 


CO 


^3- LO 


O 


00 LT) 


<-> o 


OJ 


O CO 


ro 


*d- lo 




l~- O 


CO r^ 


o» 


OS LO 


«* 


CM CM 


LO 


OJ O 



<=J- CM lO 



<x> r^ ro 



LO i-H 


r~- 


OS LO 


LO 


CO OS 


CM 


r^ CO 


■=f t-H 


LO 


O r^ 


Oj 


CO r^ 


^ 


<-< o 



r^ uo 


CM 


OJ OS 


i-H 


O LO 


LO 


LO O 


■a- -a- 


OS 


.-H LO 


CO 


CO r^ 


o 


co <d- 



o ■* 

OS LT> 

^h «a- 


ro 
OS 
CO 


LO 


o 

CM 


O 


CM 

CD 


OO 


LO 

CO 




CM 

CT> 


^ 


os r-. 


o 


>* 


KJD 


^.r 


CO 


H 


CO 


LO 


CM 


CO' 


r^ os 

■* co 

CM LO 


LO 


o 

LO 

C'J 


CM 


'JO 
CM 


. — I 
CM 


CO 

ro 
< — i 


CO 
M 
i-H 


LO 
OJ 


CM 


CO 
'JO 
CM 


CO <3" 
LO LO 
■-H CO 


OJ 
ro 
O 




OS 

00 
CM 


O 
LO 

CM 


O 
OS 


CO 
CO 




OO 

c^ 




us 
LO 



X3 O i- 



f0 *~> 

JZ u 

i— OS •!- 

i— c s- 

OJ •*- +-> 

3 ^ LO 

un u -r— 

(T3 O Q T- 

o or 



LT> CO 


'J ) 


■3- OS 


ro 


•— ' CM t— 1 >3- O 


OS r-H 


o 


LO CO 


uo 


OS LD O CO CO 


OO CO 


r-. 


co o 


^r 


OJNLDNO 



i-H f— I CO 



UO CO oo 



co o 
uo r-~ 

co co 



•i— L/l 



cz> <z> uo 



OJ i-H 



o o 

CM <3- 
CO i— I 



•-H i-H CM 
■=r CO CM 



LO ^J- CM O CO 
^f UO l-l O ■-< 
CO i-H 



r^ CO 


O 


O^ CM 


<y. 


<t oinoio 


O CM 


ro 


CM CM 


>e 


■JNONOl 



-— i ^d- 


Lf) 


cr> ro 


CM 


cr. <d- co oo r-» 


^-t UD 


r- 


CM <d- 


r^ 


NCOOlDN 



<Z> <Z> CD C3 o 

LO LO Ol O"^ 
NiJHfOro 
CO CM LO CO i-H 



CO LO C-- i-H LO OS 

OS CO LO 00 CM CM 

i-H CM O O CM O 

>* CO 00 UO CM UO 



co co co uo co r-- 
os uo ^h co -a- os 
•-H «a- r~ CO ^3- i-h 



Or— i_ 

os o +-> 

+-> "D </] 

C C -r- 



Q >, 

CU E r— C 

S- -C C O 

O U JO -i- 



135 



in iP id n cm 



t— < r-» o*i en 



Oin in o^ 



cm O CM 



X. 




C 


r- 


H 




! 




OS 




tr 


P 




- 


r^ 


C 




« 


oc 


u 




s 








« 


a 


- 






X 


u 








MM 






K 




< 




H 






s 


y: 


r»i 




a 


Mhi 


X 






Q 


fN 








X 


E 




K 


o> 


"3 


ex 


= 




V 

7 


< 


H 


> 






z 


eg 


c 


V 


■— 


u 

■r 


7 


< 


y. 


— 




-c 


y: 


B 


"3 


V 


< 




- 


a 


U 


^ 




a 


y; 


— 






z 


■r 
Z 






c 


a 














t- 


2 






< 


■r 

u 




", 

r^ 


- 


■r 

a 




/ 


* 


<J 






a 


la. 




e 








r- 


u 


- 


Z 


■e 
•e 


H 


< 


i 






■a 
= 

a 


u 

E 




s 


r*5 

3C 


T3 
C 
■J 


3C 


o 


O 


S. 


O 





9X 


c 




z 


■3 






< 


c 




e 

9 



CO <T ■=3" ^J- 



*- . ro 



CT> <3" <Ti O 

CM N MVD 


CM 

CC 

ro 


CT> 1^ O O 

r-< oo ro <d- 

C\J 


CM 


<T» «— * CO CM CT^ 


CTi 
CM 


HNtt 
r~H LO O 
*—t •— ( CM 


CC *3" CO CTi 

r^ ^r •— i o-> 


n 

o 


U5N MCO 
-— « CO CM 


CM 

CM 


HLnmNOi 

^■LDHHO 

«— i ,— i ro i— i 


ro 


co «=3- ^r 
o vo o 

COCOrt 



o o o lo 






C\J LO CJN, CNJ 00 



LT) O O O 



ro CM O CTl CO 



HHNfO 

•— " cnj cnj co 



rnintDin 



NOJMD 



.-H ■-< .-I ^3" 



**o lt> CO cr. oo 



uo o o O o 



oo o co r~ o to 



r-~ U3 l£> 0"> CTt 



co cnj r~- cr> co 



<3" UO CNJ LT) 



*3" ^J- LO CO 



tx> un in 



en CO CO 



O LO 



^O CO CTl 



CO CNJ LD 



t— t CNJ CO 



»— I CO 



O O Ol 
CO •ej- >3- 

•—I CNJ CO 



O O O UO 



o o o ir. 



— 2 

-< ex 

z 

^5 



T3 « ^h 



UD OMM ID <^D 



CD r~- en nD 



o o o o o 



rO "X) OJ LD <=f r-H 



CONCOCO 
O LO O CM 
CM •— < CO CM 


o 

CM 


cm I s * a> io 
ro en cm ro 

HrH-HCvJ 


' J 
■1, 


concooN 
*3- "Xi r^. r-» i— < 
CO *^j- CM CM «=± 


CM 
CO 

ro 


CO O tH 
^H CM CO 
«3- CO «— 1 


C7"> CT» «^J- kO 

X) CH O CM 

•nT (NJ ID 


00 

n, 
r j 


CO LD CO CO 

LO CTv t— < i— • 
CO r-l 


-J 
CO 


(n ro ro h cti 
^h r^- i^» "cj- r-- 

.-h CM 


CO 

l ■ 

LO 


«^J- LD CTi 
LO IX> CO 



y 



— -Si 



73 O I— 

<5TJ OJ 0J 



aj a; -^ ^: 

r— VI -r- H3 

=£ <£ 3 >- 



o a; cd >> 
>»^r 3 qj 
s- -r- o m u 
oj "o +->+-> c 

> n3 ••- 03 fT3 

=£ e: Z 3 >• 





QJ 


1 1 


0) 


? 


■c 




' : 


rn 


'„ 




4 • 


-. 


rn 


m 


m 


'J 


■ ; 



•r- t/1 



H3 C -r- 



^- -r- O 



136 



s 


^" r-* csj Cr> rn 




no .— • ro 



• ooocriLn <t «— » 



CO 

H 

« 

o 
u 

H 

u 

X 
H 

5 

a 






w 

< 
U 



V 

H "3 



on 
'C 

3 

Q 



a ^o 

a 2 



.2 f 






»^> cri «d- •— * en 
csj csj kjo «3- co 



o o o o o 



(Ti CTi CSJ <Ti <3" CO 





1 



a 




a 


k& «- lti *r in 


O 
H 


coaoojn 


|-~ *t r-H LO CO 




a 





r-< i— i lo i—t co o ro 
en *d- <d- «x> co wo <o 

fOHH 



UOOOOOOO LO 



*3" «J3 CO «d" O •— 'CSJ LO 

co csj ^j- cri CO csj en CO 

oi «h r-i ro io co m r«H 

.— I i— I i— I i— < i— IHfO .— t 



LOkD^D^c\jtr>oo ^~ 
r-» ix> r-- lo en <x> r--. lo 



Z 3 
O g- 

H 

w u 

OS o 

H 
en 
W 

o 

Q 

Q 
Z 

< 

- 

> 

- 
< 
x 
w 
z 
w 
o 

o 

en 
W 

o 



01 

< 

■a 
c 

90 



01 

c 

■3 

c 

a. 



w vc 

u »»> 

.5 - 

■o «e 

B "" 

a. 

O 06 



4 S' 



LO O CO O O 



u 


■o 


< 


o 


UD 


10 


^t 


LO 


>=r 


>— 


s 




C 3 




lO 


^t 


O 







rj 


•-* 


r ~- ' 


'" H 


CM 


cm 


vi 


















u 


















e* 


c 


u 


o 


«d- 


^T 


LO 


i^ 


«5f 


< 


4/ 


u 

< 


LT> 


CM 


<rr 


,_, 


ro 


r — . 




LTI 






m 


i-i) 


cr, 








ro 


CM 


C\J 


CM 


CM 


CM 






u 


















a 




















lO 


LO 


«* 


i n 


o 


o 







B 


«* 


■-T 


LO 


r^ 


r*« 


m 




H 


- 


VD 


r " H 




CM 


rH 


CM 



o > 



O r- 

in i — 

>> 

(U 3 <D i/) 

"O o -*: -C c 

c Q ■ — +-> ro 

(D U O 3 S- 



f— -i- u 



O T3 O <-0 C C 

S- >,J= 3 ^ O -r- 

<U A3 (O >, U U 13 

X; i— S-» fT3 03 A3 3 

O (_J CD ^ ^r> 51 oo 



CX) 

o 



OLOOOOOO o 

IT) 143 CO ^- «t O N CSJ 

v£> CO ^ ^ CO l^- ro .—I 

CO i— I i— I CSJ CSJ CSJ CSJ 



CO«X)CSJ"^-r^.COLD «£> i-H 

ro o co in ud co o^ csj lo 

Cfi O cm o lo -t en «^- r-. 

cocsjcsjro^HLOcn ro csj 



137 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 



Filings 



July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983 

Dispositions 



Filings 



District 1 




Chowan 
1 
Dare 
Gates 

Pasquotank 
Perquimans 


100 

701 
340 
486 
293 
803 
438 


District Totals 


3,161 


District 2 




Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


1,538 
111 

1,057 
162 
527 


District Totals 


3,395 


District 3 




Carteret 
Craven 
Pami ico 
Pitt 


1,531 

2,337 

341 

3,112 


District Totals 


7,321 


District 4 




Dupl in 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 


1,743 

199 

2,292 

1,746 


District Totals 


5,980 


District 5 




New Hanover 
Pender 


3,404 
580 


District Totals 


3,984 


District 6 




Bertie 
Hal ifax 

• ^ord 
Northampton 


893 

1,629 
768 
705 


District Totals 


3,995 


District 7 




-.ombe 
Nash 
Wi lson 


5,316 
3,865 
2,934 


ct Totals 


12,115 


District 3 






4 39 
3,318 
2,657 


Distr 


6,414 



95 
839 
517 

269 
793 
450 

3,272 



1,602 
112 

1,160 
147 
564 

3,585 



1,619 

2,300 

354 

3,211 

7,484 



1,679 

207 

2,027 

1,809 

5,722 



3,333 
558 

3,891 



889 

1,671 

804 

691 

4,055 



5,294 
3,962 
3,109 

12,365 



444 
3,401 
2,636 

6,481 



District 9 

Frankl in 
Granvi 1 le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 

District Totals 



District 10 
Wake 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 

District Totals 



District 14 



1,078 
1,083 

845 

2,319 

520 

5,845 



9,969 



1,263 
2,490 
1,081 

4,834 



9,232 
672 

9,904 



1,956 
1,030 
2,168 

5,154 



Durham 


13,577 


District 15A 




Alamance 


2,878 


District 15B 




Chatham 


730 


Orange 


1,628 


District Totals 


2,358 


District 16 




Robeson 


6,082 


Scotland 


1,150 


District Totals 


7,232 


District 17A 




Caswell 


369 


Rockingham 


2,515 


District Totals 


2,884 


District 17B 




Stokes 


44 3 


Surry 


2,979 


District Totals 


3,422 



Dispositions 



1,003 
1,087 

937 
2,423 

585 



6,035 



9,807 



1,194 
2,524 
1,158 

4,876 



9,417 
684 

10,101 



1,781 

800 

2,231 

4,812 



13,118 



746 
1,614 

2,360 



6,492 
1,122 

7,614 



409 
2,456 

2,865 



444 
2,895 

3,339 



38 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 

Filings Dispositions Filings Dispositions 



Forsyth 8,631 8,560 



Alexander 


440 


Davidson 


2,453 


Davie 


433 


I rede 1 1 


2,520 


District Totals 


5,846 


District 23 




Alleghany 


396 


Ashe 


280 


Wilkes 


2,305 


Yadkin 


1,114 


District Totals 


4,095 


District 24 




Avery 


223 


Madison 


114 


Mitchell 


140 


Watauga 


375 


Yancey 


120 


District Totals 


972 



379 

337 

2,417 

1,112 

4,245 



204 
116 
202 
388 
136 

1,046 



District Totals 



State Totals 



2,519 
6,439 



District 18 

Guilford 9,424 9,234 Burke 1,308 1,322 

High Point 4,302 4,361 Caldwell 2,633 2,598 

District Totals 13,726 13,595 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 1,628 1,614 

Rowan 2,456 2,511 Mecklenburg 20,703 24,349 

District Totals 4,084 4,125 

District 19B Gaston 4,063 3,929 

Montgomery 953 962 

Randolph 1,517 1,541 

District Totals 2,470 2,503 ^.l™ 6 3 '^ 

District 20 District Totals 4,012 4,087 

Anson 813 781 



Moore 1,603 1,570 

Richmond 1,614 1,669 Buncombe 4,830 4,914 

Stanly 1,254 1,266 

Union 1,503 1,494 

District Totals 6,787 6,780 Henderson 632 600 

435 
District 21 Polk 199 191 

1,579 
318 



District 22 District Totals 2,669 3,123 

486 
2,327 

401 
2,552 

5,766 



District 25 




Burke 
Caldwel 1 
Catawba 


1,308 
2,633 
2,540 


District Totals 


6,481 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


20,703 


District 27A 




Gaston 


4,063 


District 27B 




Cleveland 
Lincoln 


3,408 
604 


District Totals 


4,012 


District 28 




Buncombe 


4,830 


District 29 




Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transyl vania 


632 
398 
199 
1,090 
350 


District Totals 


2,669 


District 30 




Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 


234 
73 
84 

974 
315 
586 

106 



234 






257 


73 






63 


84 






89 


974 






951 


315 






315 


586 






619 


106 






96 


2,372 




2 


,390 


Total Filed 


Tot, 


Jl D 


isposed 


206,163 




210 


,519 



139 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983 











OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 












Delinquent 






Undisciplined 




Dependent Neglected Abused 


Grand 
Total 


Children 
Before 


District 1 


Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truancj 


Other Total 


Court For 
First Time 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 









3 




7 

17 
8 
6 

40 
1 


6 

24 

29 

3 



70 
12 


6 

n 

46 

11 

6 

110 

13 







11 



o 







o 
2 










2 






1 



1 

2 



1 
2 

11 
1 
1 
2 






6 
1 

1 
1 


7 
33 

64 

13 

8 

117 

14 


7 
23 
36 
13 

8 
42 

9 


District Totals 





79 


144 


223 





2 


2 


4 


18 


9 


256 


138 


District 2 


























Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 










15 
26 

5 


2 


38 

11 

K) 

4 

IS 


53 
37 

is 

4 
17 


1 




2 




1 






1 


1 

2 


12 
2 

o 




12 
2 

20 






2 

o 



78 
41 
38 
4 
19 


42 
10 
28 
4 
17 


District Totals 





48 


78 


126 


3 


1 


4 


14 


34 


2 


180 


101 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 






G 


14 

53 



53 


19 
89 
21 

215 


53 
142 

21 
268 


1 

2 

2 


2 
9 

5 


3 

11 



7 


7 
12 

1 

IS 


1 

19 


29 


5 

14 


5 


69 
198 

22 
344 


36 

90 
11 

88 


District Totals 





140 


344 


484 


5 


16 


21 


55 


49 


24 


633 


225 


District 4 


























Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 








19 



109 

20 


29 

3 

86 

SO 


48 

3 

195 

70 




2 



4 

3 
2 


4 


5 
2 


1 

2 
20 
13 


8 

4 
33 

10 






16 

9 


61 

9 

269 

110 


29 

7 

93 

48 


District Totals 





148 


168 


316 


2 


9 


11 


16 


61 


2S 


449 


177 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 







308 
10 


275 
31 


583 
41 


13 
3 


48 
3 


01 
6 


5 
8 


19 
3 


3 
3 


671 
61 


242 
32 


District Totals 





318 


306 


624 


16 


51 


67 


13 


22 


6 


732 


274 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 






o 


2 

IS 
1 
4 


21 
L25 

21 

1,' 


23 

lf,'i 
22 
16 



9 








12 








21 






8 

S 
5 

1 


5 

19 
8 

4 


3 
4 

4 
2 


39 

209 

39 

23 


39 
53 
35 

13 


District Totals 





42 


179 


221 


9 


12 


21 


19 


36 


13 


310 


140 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 
Nash 
Hi 1 son 




1 




59 
34 
50 


109 
108 

124 


168 

14; 

1/4 




4 
1 


10 
9 
5 


10 

13 

6 


16 
19 
11 


32 
22 

11 


1 
6 

14 


227 

203 
216 


110 

111 

106 


District Totals 


1 


14 ! 


341 


485 


5 


24 


29 


46 


65 


21 


646 


327 


District 3 


























■ 


1 





3 
24 
52 


11 

2 ''A 
22 


is 

258 

74 




12 

8 


1 

19 
5 


1 
31 
13 



12 
33 


3 
46 
62 


1 

5 
6 


20 
352 

188 


12 
105 

103 


District 'otals 


1 


79 


267 


347 


20 


25 


45 


45 


111 


12 


560 


220 



140 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983 











OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 
































Children 






Del 


nquent 






Undisciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected Abused 


Grand 


Before 






Other 


Misde- 










Court For 


District 9 


Capital 


Felony 


meanor 


Total 


Truanc 


y Other Total 








Total 


First Time 


Franklin 





25 


10 


35 





10 


in 


3 


5 


1 


54 


25 


Granville 





25 


29 


54 


1 


7 


8 


17 


11 


5 


95 


48 


Person 





10 


2 


12 


2 


7 


9 


2 


4 


1 


28 


21 


Vance 





61 


83 


144 





18 


18 


1,' 


15 


7 


1 96 


51 


Warren 





6 


3 


9 


1 


2 


3 


5 


2 


1 


20 


10 



District Totals 



127 



12 7 



254 



44 



48 



VI 



37 



15 



39 3 



155 



District 10 
Wake 



85 



16 3 



248 



63 



(/) 



4/ 



■14 



22 



420 



297 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 






54 


60 


114 


4 


14 


18 


8 


22 


6 


168 


73 





68 


88 


156 


2 


13 


15 


3 


7 


2 


183 


69 





33 


61 


94 


1 





1 


7 


13 


4 


119 


60 





155 


209 


364 


7 


27 


34 


18 


42 


12 


470 


202 





221 


342 


563 


28 


235 


263 


89 


113 


27 


1,055 


474 








40 


40 


t 


16 


18 


41 


34 


4 


137 


16 



221 



56 



382 



109 



603 



30 



251 



281 



130 



14/ 



166 



36 



42 



45 



n 



1,192 



267 



489 






4 


15 


19 


2 


2 


4 


1 


4 


2 


30 


23 





49 


82 


131 


2 


30 


32 


1 


33 


3 


200 


89 





3 


12 


15 


2 


4 


6 


6 


8 


3 


37 


36 



148 



District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 



140 



31 



404 



77 



545 



108: 



17 



26 



10 



31 



30 



14 



217 



1/ 



11 



822 



179 



216 



78 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 



1 
54 

56 



26 
118 

144 



27 

172 

199 



16 



4 
37 

41 



40 
226 

266 



25 

194 

219 



District 16 



Robeson 





220 


121 


341 


10 


16 


25 


64 


84 


17 


531 


231 


Scotland 





43 


88 


131 


2 





2 


10 


41 


1 


L94 


106 


District Totals 





263 


209 


472 


12 


15 


27 


83 


186 


18 


725 


337 


District 17A 


























Caswell 





5 


4 


9 





1 


1 


1 


7 





18 


8 


Rockingham 


2 


62 


78 


142 





12 


12 


16 


1 9 


4 


192 


95 


District Totals 


2 


6 7 


82 


151 





13 


13 


16 


26 


4 


210 


103 


District 17B 


























Stokes 





30 


42 


72 


10 


4 


14 


19 


11 


3 


119 


38 


Surry 





112 


51 


163 


16 


6 


21 


9 


30 


11 


234 


61 


District Totals 





142 


93 


235 


26 


10 


•16 


28 


41 


14 


35 3 


99 


District 18 



























Guilford 



285 



779 1,064 



65 



90 



L55 



121 



86 



20 



1,445 



485 



141 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 

District Totals 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



OFFENSES 



Delinquent 



•13 
S3 

L26 



58 

247 

305 



101 

333 

434 



Undisciplined 



Other Misde- 
Capital Felony meanor 



Total Truancy Other 



1 
91 

92 



6 
72 

/8 



Total 

7 
163 

L70 



CONDITIONS 



Dependent Neglected Abused 



16 
195 

211 



27 
38 

65 



5 
14 

19 



Grand 
Total 

156 

743 

899 



Children 
Before 

Court For 
First Time 

101 

131 

232 



District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 



3 

50 

5 1 



14 
36 

110 



13 

146 

1 6 i 



4 
9 

13 



2 

37 

39 



6 
46 



3 
21 

24 



so 

220 
250 



24 

107 

131 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



16 

80 
8 7 
19 

84 

286 



16 
69 
56 
39 
104 

284 



38 
149 
14^ 

58 
188 

5 70 






1 

3 

6 

10 





6 

15 

21 



(] 

7 
3 
21 

51 



1 

6 

3 

3 

26 

39 



123 

24 

5 

59 

219 




9 
2 
3 
7 

21 



41 
287 

l/o 
72 

101 



19 
93 
76 

38 

135 

361 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 



87 



4 

105 

21 

4 

1 81 



16 ', 



16 

138 
24 

108 

286 



250 



20 

243 

45 

118 

420 



4 

8 
5 
4 

15 



58 



10 

37 

4 

40 

91 



04 



14 

39 

9 

44 

106 



2 
31 

2 
10 

40 



76 



5 

30 
15 
18 



If. 



1 


10 



4 15 



42 
351 

72 
184 

649 



300 



38 
146 
22 

80 

286 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wi 1 kes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 



2 

12 

38 
10 

62 



4 

24 

90 

110 

228 



6 
16 

188 

120 

290 



3 
7 

30 
13 

5 3 




6 

11 
6 

23 



3 

13 
41 
19 

76 



2 

3 

32 

13 

50 



3 
12 

100 
46 

161 



1 
1 

4 
8 

14 



15 

65 

305 

206 

591 



10 
39 

111 
52 

212 



District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 



12 
2 

1/ 

22 

1 

54 



4 
10 

9 
24 

3 

50 



16 
13 
26 
46 
4 

105 



14 
4 
5 

12 
3 

38 



15 
6 
5 

13 
3 

42 



10 

4 
7 
7 
3 

31 



5 
11 

8 
23 



4/ 



47 
38 

47 
89 

12 

233 



46 
29 
19 

34 

12 

140 



District 25 
Burke 

Catawba 
District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Sastor 

District 27B 
•■land 

rotals 



76 

47 

4 106 

4 229 



384 



1 190 



100 

79 
70 

840 



591 



295 



176 

126 
180 

482 



0/8 



480 



20 
33 

6 

oo 



15 



43 
83 
27 

153 



00 



37 



63 

116 

33 

212 



114 



'./ 



12 

35 
37 



4 5 



28 

21 
54 

83 



184 



19 



15 
25 



11 



281 
306 
299 



1,283 



598, 



126 

87 

118 

331 



617 



293 







89 

10 


/I 
!9 


160 
58 


3 



8 

10 


11 

10 


20 
13 


15 

12 


17 
6 


223 

00 


111 
56 





108 


110 


218 


3 


18. 


21 


33 


27 


23 


322 


167 



142 



District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swa i n 

District Totals 
State Totals 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 

OFFENSES 



Delinquent 



Undisciplined 



Other Misde- 
Capital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total 



L33 



75 



211 



161 



544 



24 



1 70 



194 






1 


83 


84 


27 


28 


55 





20 


11 


31 


12 


9 


21 





2 


3 


5 














36 


48 


84 


14 


13 


27 





If, 


16 


3? 


13 


1 


14 



236 



66 



51 



11/ 



CONDITIONS 




Children 


Dependent Neglected Abused 




Before 




Grand 


Court For 




Total 


First Time 



63 59 18 



67 



35 



678 



in 


15 


2 


166 


if. 


21 


6 


95 


2 


1 





8 


23 


35 


14 


183 


16 


9 


3 


74 



526 






7 


9 




16 


1 


1 


2 


n 


3 


1 


22 





4 


r > 




9 


n 











n 





9 








1 




1 


1 





1 





4 


2 


8 





14 


7 




21 


4 


7 


11 


6 


6 


a 


51 


(l 


6 


8 




14 


1 


6 


7 


2 


6 


1 


30 





1 


in 




11 


n 


1 


1 


1 


1 


n 


14 


1) 





4 




4 


2 


4 


6 


1 


4 


i 


16 





32 


44 




76 


9 


19 


28 


9 


24 


13 


150 


.4 


4,577 


7,692 


1? 


,283 


591 


1,632 


2,223 


1,500 


2,370 


492 


18,868 



220 



61 

60 

8 

62 

4 7 

238 



1/ 
9 
6 
64 
29 
14 
93 

232 
8,190 



143 



r^ «a- —« co ce ^ «a- co 
_o* couo*— < t— < i— < m 

« .5 *— ' <NJ 



*^j- «— « O *tf" ct> 
h m «3- cti 



O O *X) •— ' O O •— • CO 



O O CM o «-< CO 



<x> cm o co .—) 



mm ix) 



ro t-noo O 



OO— 'OOOO «— < 



(NJU3 OC\l O 



O O O »X) "X) 



O O O 



onno *3- 



O O LO «— ' O O — < P-* 



O O ^H O O r-t 



<=j- KO O i-t 



O O O CO CO 



co ro <x> 



CO o CO O «X) 



CO O CO O CD vO 



CTl CO CM 



i— i i— t ro 



o o — « o o o o 



O O C\J O O CM 



t-H co o r*-. <— i 



i c\j co r--. 



ON^fN ro 



Ed 

- 
z 

> H 

3 ft! 

«i h - 

en U - 
a X - 

— ™ 

5 W 8 



I " 



*z 

w — 
td 



;»-. ^ 



f-H m lo t— it— i ro o <3- 



0000--100 <-" 



ooooooo o 



OOOO^HOO --I 



O O O O O CM O CM 



ooooooo o 



O O O O O CM O CM 



co o \o o o *a- 



oj «a- ■— < o o 



cnj ro i-H o o lo 



O --I o O O --I 



I O O O CM CO 



O O O O O O 



I O O O CM CO 



cm >a- o o lo 

•— ' LO LO .— I 



in <^ i-H ro ro 



O CTl O CO CM 



ro lo o CTl CO 



lo ro t-H CO CO 
*d- cm r^ 



I CM LO r-- LO 



O O O LO LO 



«d- O O •— < LO 



CM O LO O r^ 



CM O LO I— I CO 



U1N CM 



LO r^ CM 



i— I «3- LO CM ro 



O i— < ^3- O LO 



t— I CO O O CT. 



lo CO o O ro 



LO CD CD O LO 



Q 

< 



<X> ' — i CTi • — ' VO <X) CO CNJ 

ro n h o «— ' •— « 

i—i CM 



C\J CTt CTi CTt ct> 

CO Ch i— I CNJ CnJ 

i— I CO >X) 



.— 1 CM 



cm i_r> lo «s- cm co co ^r 



00 un CO CnJ o co 



i ro <x> "X) <X> 



<;ri£iNtNNrno co 

CM CO CO »-* VJD 



LD CO f— t i— i 



vO CO CO CT. 
LO CO t-H CM 



cm <x> en 

CM f-H 



'j 






c: C-P O *r- S- 

a» as •«- (/) n 3 +-> 

t3 2 '- qj m cr cj i/) 

£ O ^- S- +-* CO S- •!— 

t; x: 3 itj tj ro (Li Q 

U U U Q 'J Q. D. 



3 QJ+J 1-X 
A3 "O i- S- t/> 
CD >-> f0 >•> ro 

CDX2f-3 



s_ 


L 


'j 




01 


(1) 






4-1 


~- 




1 ' 


s- 


C0 


r 


•4-1 


m 


1- 


ro 




(_) 


C_5 


O- 


Q_ 



o 

C •!- 

c 3 o s- 

'(— LO O LO -t-> 

i— ai i— ex in 

Q. C LO E T- 

3 o c <a CD 
O ~D O tS) 



(T1 


l. 


T 


(1) 




■o 


■? 


c 


a) 


cu 



■i- LO 



"O CL o 

x s- E •-- 

(U 03 O ro L - 



5- r— S. S- •<- 

Qj ro QJ O O 

co :n 3: ^ 



144 



n in rv on 
coocsj «-• 
oj c\j cm r^ 



<s- ro ro 

rHCOOl 

ro c\J 



o r- ^3- 


i — i 


h»- ON 


UL> 


LD CO O 


ro o t— * 


LO 


co ro 


r^. 


LO CO LO 


LO «3" I— I 


o 


O t-t 


tH 


i— t t— 1 



i on on ro 



«3" ON C\J LD 



C\J «* ^O 



O O ro ro 



^3- ro csi on 



on^t N hcmhiocO CO 



OUDO <X> 



CsJ ^j" <JD 



I CNJ f-* «3" 



CVJ rHN o 



N CON His o 



O «tf ■— ■ LO 



i ro ro cnj cz> 



lo «^) cnj ro 



w 

Z 

>H 

PCS 
~>P 
KO 

ou 

H 

u 



GO 

o 
z 



H 






x 

H 



ro o O 


CO 


•— * *3~ LO 


CNJ CNJ f— I 


LO 


— 1 CNJ 



_ *3- *a- r-. in 

a .-i .-. ro 



oS 



< 

5 

Q 






ro ro ro on 



H<3- LO 



r^ o «=r i-* 

CNJ 1— I <— 1 LO 



o o «a- *d- 



fOS i-H 



^H r-H «X) CO 

^ ON CO CO 



kD rv<3" CO LD 



<d" id n tn in hs 



cnj .— i cnj m- ro CNJ 



CO lo <— h ro co uo 

.—I .-H ^f 



O <=3" <0 ON CNJ 



CO r— I LO «d" UD 



r-» ro cnj cnj 



ON *3" CNJ LO 



cm on cm ro 



on ro ro 



r-tlj*) KO 



CNJ .-H CO 



r^. CNJ ON 



i— I CNJ 



lo ro on 



O cnj ro LO 



CNJ i-H LO ON 



cnj f— i uo o^ 



O cnj r^-. ro o cnj 



coco n ro 



ro ro on lo 

*JD LO C\J 

t— i 1— i ro 



i— I U3 C\J 


Ol 


o oo 


CO 


O O rH 


r- 10 «* 


CO 


r^ eg 


en 


MOM 





h- 


OO 






1— 


CX> 




h- 


o 




£ 




i— 


CM 


•o 


h- 


ro 




I— 


cu 


+J 








+-> 




O) 


+-> 














c 


+-> 






■M 


-O 


O 


M 






u 


4-> 


C r— 


U 


+j 




-M 


C 


u 


+-> 


TO 


u 


+-> 


U l/l 


'J 


E 




u 








U 






u 




U 


+-> O 




u 






O 


•r- 3 




o c 


1. 




OJ s- 




S_ 




r— -r- C C 


t- 








4-> -t-> 


S- 




s_ 


V- 




c 3 J3 


s. 


o o 


*J 


i_ 


C -r- 


OJ 


4-> 


S_ 


J£ > O 0) (L) 




J_ 




s_ 


<U (>0 


4-> 


S- 


ai 


+J 


s_ 


ai in E 


-M 


a> -c i/i 


Ifl 


+-> 


Qj o 


c 


V) 


fJ 


C c w o s- 


m 


+-> 


CD 


+J 


c c 


If) 


+J 


ja oj 


l/> 


-M 


"O C 3 




CT> in i — 




on 


0) c 


>> 




en 


<T3 03 i- C i- 




1/1 




l/l 


s- r <u 




u-l 


E ^: 




in 


<0 =! r- 




■a <T3 •!- 


Q 




s- ai 


fD 


Q 




S- i- CD (T3 rU 


o 




TO 




(0 O 4) 


Q 




3 o 


□ 




^ s- O 


a 


UJ ^ 3 




□ 


C3 _l 


:•: 




Q 


li-OCL> 3 




a 


3 


Q 


rn ^> _i 




o 


<-> n: 




Q 


CD OO <-J 





145 



2 -S 

H 5 



oo n at 



CO O co 

rHCO en 

•-" cm co 



o r- 

■—I LO 



O 1-1 i-i 



LO 1^ •— I CT> CO CO 

«3- CO i— I O CTl «3" 

CM CO CM CM ■— < 



Ofn en 



en i— " o 



O CM CM 



•3- -3" CO 



O CM CM 



*3* CM CO 



CM CO LO 



CO CO CD 



CO LO CTt 



OOIOCON 



O O CO CM O LO 



oo\ N IC n en 



- 
z 

Wc/3 

>H 

"J 3 
KC 

US "> 
Sh § 

<5 ' 

O c/j 

55 

■J 

Q 



— : 



— LO 



O CM CM 



2 ■-< 



CO "3" CM 



CM LO r-- 



O CO CO 



CM CO LO 



t-H CM 



i-h r^ 


oc 


en csj 


,— i 


<3" O 


«3- 


(X) «3- 


r-*. 


m 


CO 


ro .— • 


m 



CO LO CO 



o o o 



O -=3- *3" 



0*3" si- 



's- LO CT* 



LO CO 


en 


CM CO 


LO 


<3- CO 


O 


r~- ^r 


CM 


i— 1 


< — i 


CM 


CO 



O C\J CM 



ro lo CO 



^ LO CH 



cmn en 



LO *3- 


en 


>a- en 


ro 


CO co o r-. oo 


CM CO 


o 


CM 


CO 


CM CO LO LO 



O LO LO 



o ai o-i 



CM CD CO 



O i-t i-H 



«3- OO CM 



r~- CM Cn 



O CD CO «3" CO CD 



o lo en co o 



O O CD O O CD 



O O LO O 00 CO 



O O i— I O CM CO 



«3- *3" 


CO 


«3- CM 


LQ 


NOKMOCO 


o r- 


r-~ 


O r- 


r^ 


CO *3" CM CO CXi 


r-\ CM 


CO 


rt «a- 


LO 


rtWrlT-l 



CM CO 


C ) 


i-t oo 


a. 


CD CO CO CTt r-~- 


i— 1 


O CM 


CO 


CT> O 


en 


t-i en co o CO 


«3" 


i-H CM 


CO 


■* 


*3" 


r-t .-H i— 1 


LO 



03 CD I- •»- 



1J fO '-- 



r— en ■■- 



oo o 
« o 



•f- 00 



o •— s- 

OlO -"-> 

4-> "O LO 

C C T- 







o 


>1 




c 


a> 


f 




c 


o 


s- 


c 


c 


1 1 


1/1 


n 


<.) 


nJ 




CT 


o 




+J 


c- 


■3. 


> 


C£. 


oo 


_> 



146 



CI i— I LT> 



i— I O CO CM 
i— 1 C\J C\J 



en <o ud «— < 
o u-> ^ co 
ud «3- co oo 



r-KOW° •"-! 



X 


E 




i/! 


3 


Q 


-O 




< 


■a 



rHfvJ ID CO 



ooorj cm 



r^CNJ VOID LT> 



N CT1HOU1 CM 



<— i "3" O O i— • IX) 



tOUlHO^ *jd 



o t-i co ai 



o o co co 



i-h CM 



w 

8 

>H 

«o 

OS 
H 



0\ 



< 

u 



P 

i-s 

Q 



W 
en 



rni^Ho cr* 



CO lo <"*"> to r-^ 



5 3 



i to CO CO PO 



c\j cr> «3- cm 

HrHtHfO 



oo co cm to 



f-s o co to to 



*-H O LD CO 



«3" CM *3" tO tO 



«— i O *t «d- o^ 



i^-mo co 



to o~> o co co 

CO i— « cm o 



<3" O «* •— t CT\ 



■— I CM 



O-^NO 



i-H f— I t-< ^ tO 



[■*■«■ CO LO to 



to r-» LO CO 



M NN tO 
<d- CTt CM tO 
«— I i— i CO 



CO N LO 



O LO LO 



LO tO i— I 



"O O f— •!- 

C CO r— U- 

A3 T) <U (L 4-> 

X T- -r- "O LO 

<D ?> > a; t- 

, — 03 03 S- Q 

■=£ O Q i-i 



rt3 

-C LO C 

en at -r- 

(D (1)^^ 
r- J= r- *0 
i — LO -f- 03 
<<3> 



O QJ CD >-, 

S- •■- O 03 <_> 
Of "O -M +-> C 
> 03 •»- 03 03 
<2S3> 



■.— CO 



<— (J 





i — 


CD 




01 


JZ> 


0) 


3 


3 




"O 


ro 


s_ 






3 


fO 


to 


CD 


'—J 


<__> 



( — +J -I— I/) 



i— r— S- t- 



■— T- O T- 



147 



Q> « — ' CTt LT* CNJ i*D 



— C*~> C~! C2 (& <z? UD 



— ' O O O f^ «tf- 



rvj ro o ud "- 1 c\j 



| o o o o o . 



ooooooo o 



■— 'OOOOOi-h CSJ 



2 

> H 

p ^ 2 -: 

■— r- — ± 

S. w * t 

~ ~ ? s 

5w ' I 



— r^ ro «— i o O 



i_n o O «— < ^D c\j 



<Q 



I 






5 



« ^ ; 



>jnoopo en 



O O O •— I t— I CM 



S oon 



I^y3 rHC\J^ o 



CO lt> <i> fl CO O 



mo^roo^j-t-H^j- en 



O O (XI U3 ro o O i— i 



o csjn M^^f co 



o o o en o >— i i-h i-h 



OOOCNIO--IO ro 



o o o r-- o o .— i co 



C\J O •— i^Nt- no o 



O <— < »— ' <~^> ■— < ci O 



oowrtom o 



v£> en *-i en ro co «3- o 



•-lOO'a-Lnoo o 



Lnoir- 1 i_n co co «3- o 



O — O > 

-yv .— <4- , — 



O =: ~ o ■>- 



<D X> C 

.*: E o o 

O T3 o </i c c: 

C >,^r 3 ^ o i- 

0) TO r0 >i U U TO 

.C . — 1- (!) (C TO J 

uuonEw 



148 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

1973-1983 



I 5 



\1 

I 

L 
I 

I 

O 
\ 
s 



O 
F 



(i 5 



o.O 




78-79 79-80 



82-83 



Motor vehicle cases dominate criminal filings and dispo- 
sitions in the district courts. The increase in filings and 
dispositions shown here during 1982-83 was a direct 
result of a 7.6% increase in motor vehicle filings and a 



4.3% increase in motor vehicle dispositions. During the 
1982-83 year, 64.5% of the criminal district court filings 
and 64.3% of dispositions were traffic cases. 



149 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 



Total 
Filed 



564 
1,091 
2,074 
4,923 

992 
2,278 
1,178 

13,100 



Waiver 



333 

722 
1,251 
3.193 

643 
1,319 

934 

8,395 



Dispositions 






Other 


Total 


Dispositions 


210 




543 


383 




1,105 


608 




1,859 


1,353 




4,546 


414 




1,057 


877 




2,196 


269 




1,203 



4,114 



12,509 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrell 
Washington 

District Totals 



4,829 
834 

3,057 
400 

1,060 

10,180 



2,812 
434 

1,716 
215 
711 

5,888 



1,989 
387 

1,329 
164 
317 

4,186 



4,801 
821 

3,045 
379 

1,028 

10,074 



District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 

District Totals 



5,943 

10,165 

659 

7,553 

24,320 



3,011 

5,671 

358 

3,893 

12,933 



2,756 

4,515 

322 

3,425 

11,018 



5,767 

10,186 

680 

7,318 

23,951 



District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Total s 



4,534 

1,197 

10,636 

7,476 

23,843 



2,400 

625 

4,768 

4,811 

12,604 



1,878 

438 

6,082 

2,734 

11,132 



4,278 

1,063 

10,850 

7,545 

23,736 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 
Greene 

Wayne 
Di strict Totals 

District 9 

Franklin 

. i 1 1 e 
Pers( r 
/ar ■/■■ 
As "<■' 

District Totals 



12,973 
3,458 

16,431 



3,012 

10,535 

3,306 

4,099 

20,952 



4,923 
8,582 
5,869 

19,374 



1,722 

7,404 

10,924 

20,050 



2,065 
4,401 
2,133 
5,485 
2,582 

16,666 



6,018 
1,718 

7,736 



1,919 
5,477 
2,064 
2,318 

11,778 



3,356 
5,845 
3,982 

13,183 



1,088 
3,894 
6,008 

10,990 



1,018 
2,727 
1,005 
3,177 
1,378 

9,305 



6,596 
1,675 

8,271 



913 

4,609 
1,085 
1,995 

8,602 



1,727 
3,003 
2,458 

7,188 



572 
3,314 
4,847 

8,733 



1,099 
1,647 
1,144 
2,033 
1,129 

7,052 



12,614 
3,393 

16,007 



2,832 

10,086 

3,149 

4,313 

20,380 



5,083 
8,848 
6,440 

20,371 



1,660 

7,208 

10,855 

19,723 



2,117 
4,374 
2,149 
5,210 
2,507 

16,357 



50 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



Total 
Filed 



Waiver 



Dispositions 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



52,897 



5,657 
9,353 
4,355 

19,365 



24,896 



2,902 
4,809 
2,646 

10,357 



26,682 



2,630 
4,748 
1,524 

8,902 



51,578 



5,532 
9,557 
4,170 

19,259 



District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 



30,003 
2,665 

32,668 



14,834 
1,740 

16,574 



14,282 
828 

15,110 



29,116 
2,568 

31,684 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 

Caswell 
Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 

District 18 

Guilford 
High Point 

District Totals 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 
Rowan 

District Totals 

District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 



4,667 
4,058 
5,713 

14,438 



17,080 



13,199 



3,770 
10,050 

13,820 



11,691 
3,633 

15,324 



1,957 
9,395 

11,352 



2,673 
6,675 

9,348 



39,510 
13,592 

53,102 



13,205 
11,672 

24,877 



4,098 
8,215 

12,313 



2,328 
1,976 
2,741 

7,045 



9,102 



7,900 



2,024 
4,826 

6,850 



5,440 
1,966 

7,406 



1,207 
5,885 

7,092 



1,530 
3,991 

5,521 



17,961 
7,264 

25,225 



8,312 
7,632 

15,944 



2,776 
5,003 

7,779 



2,519 
2,069 
3,052 

7,640 



7,165 



5,415 



1,637 
4,708 

6,345 



6,647 
1,632 

8,279 



706 
3,400 

4,106 



1,107 
2,517 

3,624 



18,342 
6,329 

24,671 



4,759 
3,755 

8,514 



1,490 
3,052 

4,542 



4,847 
4,045 
5,793 

14,685 



16,267 



13,315 



3,661 
9,534 

13,195 



12,087 
3,598 

15,685 



1,913 
9,285 

11,198 



2,637 
6,508 

9,145 



36,303 
13,593 

49,896 



13,071 
11,387 

24,458 



4,266 
8,055 

12,321 



151 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



:i strict 20 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



Total 
Filed 



3,701 
6,560 
3,442 
5,193 
5,881 

24,777 



Waiver 



2 


,279 


2, 


,682 


1 


,814 


2 


,885 


3 


,375 



Dispositions 



13,035 



Other 



1,253 
3,498 
1,544 
2,176 
2,326 

10,797 



Total Dispositions 



3,532 
6,180 
3,358 
5,061 
5,701 

23,832 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 

Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 



39,682 



1,840 

13,351 

3,287 

8,880 

27,358 



20,143 



778 
8,283 
2,124 
5,595 

16,780 



19,674 



1,151 
5,333 
1,196 
2,785 

10,465 



39,817 



1,929 

13,616 

3,320 

8,380 

27,245 



District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wi 1 kes 

Yadkin 

District Totals 



687 
2,135 
6,555 
4,133 

13,510 



413 
1,351 
3,352 
2,656 

7,772 



278 

774 

2,556 

1,489 

5,097 



691 
2,125 
5,908 
4,145 

12,869 



District 24 

Avery 
Kadi son 
Mitchell 
Watauga 
Yancey 

District Totals 



1,555 
1,181 
661 
3,935 
1,524 

8,856 



840 
689 
359 
2,324 
775 

4,987 



944 

488 

283 

1,607 

671 

3,993 



1,784 
1,177 
642 
3,931 
1,446 

8,980 



District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 

District 27B 

=:land 
Lincoln 

ict Totals 

ct 28 

District 29 
Her d 

ford 
Distri ct Totals 



10,784 

6,724 

13,661 

31,169 



47,098 



18,480 



6,839 
3,843 

10,682 



19,492 



6,309 
3,771 
1,488 
4,801 
1,744 

18,113 



7,290 
3,506 
7,546 

18,342 



25,178 



8,923 



3,860 
1,872 

5,732 



12,838 



4,533 
2,406 
929 
2,864 
1,062 

11,794 



3,716 
3,024 
5,837 

12,577 



21,624 



9,123 



2,890 
1,633 

4,523 



6,458 



2,174 
1,223 

584 
1,612 

754 

6,347 



11,006 

6,530 

13,383 

30,919 



46,802 



18,046 



6,750 
3,505 

10,255 



19,296 



6,707 
3,629 
1,513 
4,476 
1,816 

18,141 



152 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 







Total 




30 


Filed 


District 




Cherokee 




1,965 


Clay 




422 


Graham 




474 


Haywood 




5,902 


Jackson 




2,308 


Macon 




2,365 


Swa i n 




1,165 


District 


Totals 


14,601 


State Tot 


als 


728,517 



Waiver 



1,130 

241 

310 

3,973 

1,446 

1,466 

672 

9,238 
399,265 



Dispositions 




Other 


Total Dispositions 


795 


1,925 


151 


392 


188 


498 


1,604 


5,577 


900 


2,346 


774 


2,240 


394 


1,066 


4,806 


14,044 


316,775 


716,040 



153 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



Pending 

7/1/82 



Filed 



Total 
Caseload 



District 1 



Disposed 



% Caseload 
Disposed 



Pending 

6/30/83 



Camden 

Chowan 

Curri tuck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


6 

41 
48 

210 
4 

128 
10 


149 
631 
735 

1,307 
210 

2,004 
332 


155 
672 
783 

1,517 
214 

2,132 
342 


147 
631 
729 

1,142 
194 

2,014 
285 


94.8 
93.8 
93.1 
75.2 
90.6 
94.4 
83.3 


8 

41 

54 
375 

20 
118 

57 


District Totals 


447 


5,368 


5,815 


5,142 


88.4 


673 


District 2 














Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


93 

19 

113 

35 

2^ 


2,659 
445 

1,293 
182 
782 


2,752 
464 

1,406 
217 
809 


2,637 
380 

1,323 
204 
799 


95.8 
81.8 
94.0 
94.0 
98.7 


115 
84 
83 
13 

10 


District Totals 


287 


5,361 


5,648 


5,343 


94.5 


305 


District 3 














Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 

Pitt 


794 

600 

59 

736 


4,117 

4,448 

514 

7,926 


4,911 

5,048 

573 

8,662 


3,934 

4,434 

507 

7,882 


80.1 
87.8 
88.4 
90.9 


977 

614 

66 

780 


District Totals 


2,189 


17,005 


19,194 


16,757 


87.3 


2,437 


District 4 














Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


287 

88 

605 

370 


2,376 

453 

7,945 

3,224 


2,663 

541 

8,550 

3,594 


2,458 

412 

7,765 

3,230 


92.3 
76.1 
90.8 
89.8 


205 
129 
785 
364 


District Total s 


1,350 


13,998 


15,348 


13,865 


90.4 


1,483 


District 5 














New Hanover 
Pender 


1,012 
196 


9,896 
1,102 


10,908 
1,298 


9,682 

1,037 


88.7 
79.8 


1,226 
261 


District Totals 


1,208 


10,998 


12,206 


10,719 


87.8 


1,487 


District 6 














Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


66 
403 
177 

88 


940 
3,863 
1,546 

881 


1,006 

4,266 

1,723 

969 


957 
3,797 
1,539 

907 


95.1 
89.0 
89.3 
93.6 


49 

469 

184 

62 


District Totals 


734 


7,230 


7,964 


7,200 


90.4 


764 


District 7 














Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


621 
826 
995 


4,966 
5,580 
5,012 


5,587 
6,406 
6,007 


4,910 
5,666 
4,691 


87.8 
88.4 
78.0 


677 

740 
1,316 


District Totals 


2,442 


15,558 


13,000 


15,267 


84.8 


2,733 


District 3 















Greene 
Lenoi r 
Wayne 

District Total s 



46 
555 
943 

1,544 



813 
4,401 
6,614 

11,828 



859 
4,956 
7,557 

13,372 



818 
4,502 
6,326 

11,646 



95.2 
90.8 
83.7 

87.0 



41 

454 

1,231 

1,726 



54 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


District 9 














Frankl in 


226 


1,780 


2,006 


1,861 


92.7 


145 


Granville 


158 


2,106 


2,264 


2,065 


91.2 


199 


Person 


226 


1,603 


1,829 


1,652 


90.3 


177 


Vance 


333 


2,598 


2,931 


2,663 


90.8 


268 


Warren 


76 


895 


971 


884 


91.0 


;-■/ 



District Totals 



1,019 



8,982 



10,001 



9,125 



91.2 



876 



District 10 
Wake 



5,440 



26,261 



31,701 



26,775 



4,926 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



362 


3,333 


3,695 


3,345 


90.5 


350 


455 


4,897 


5,352 


4,919 


91.9 


433 


300 


3,646 


3,946 


3,623 


91.8 


323 



1,117 



11,876 



12,993 



11,887 



91.4 



1,106 



District 12 



Cumberland 


3,762 


20,232 


23,994 


20,494 


85.4 


3,500 


Hoke 


208 


1,386 


1,594 


1,433 


89.8 


161 


District Totals 


3,970 


21,618 


25,588 


21,927 


85.6 


3,661 


District 13 














Bladen 


283 


2,373 


2,656 


2,408 


90.6 


248 


Brunswick 


449 


2,397 


2,846 


2,390 


83.9 


456 


Columbus 


399 


4,188 


4,587 


4,125 


89.9 


462 


District Totals 


1,131 


8,958 


10,089 


8,923 


88.4 


1,166 


District 14 














Durham 


2,728 


13,046 


15,774 


13,536 


85.8 


2,238 


District 15A 














Alamance 


747 


6,276 


7,023 


6,288 


89.5 


735 


District 15B 














Chatham 


123 


1,821 


1,944 


1,725 


88.7 


219 


Orange 


591 


4,246 


4,837 


4,200 


86.8 


637 


District Totals 


714 


6,067 


6,781 


5,925 


87.3 


856 


District 16 














Robeson 


924 


8,633 


9,557 


8,620 


90.1 


937 


Scotland 


344 


2,986 


3,330 


3,025 


90.8 


305 


District Totals 


1,268 


11,619 


12,887 


11,645 


90.3 


1,242 


District 17A 














Caswell 


55 


732 


787 


731 


92.8 


56 


Rockingham 


602 


6,019 


6,621 


6,180 


93.3 


441 


District Totals 


657 


6,751 


7,408 


6,911 


93.2 


497 


District 17B 














Stokes 


96 


1,034 


1,130 


1,031 


91.2 


99 


Surry 


375 


2,849 


3,224 


2,934 


91.0 


290 


District Totals 


471 


3,883 


4,354 


3,965 


91.0 


389 


District 18 















Guil ford 



8,402 



26,041 



34,443 



25,185 



73.1 



9,258 



55 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 19A 


Pending 

7/1/82 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/83 


Cabarrus 


595 
650 


4,761 
3,971 


5,356 
4,621 


4,651 
3,668 


86.8 
79.3 


705 
953 


District Totals 


1,245 


8,732 


9,977 


8,319 


83.3 


1,658 


District 19B 














Montgomery 
Randolph 


278 
571 


2,053 
4,136 


2,331 

4,707 


2,104 
4,085 


90.2 
86.7 


227 
622 


i ct Totals 


849 


6,189 


7,038 


6,189 


87.9 


849 


District 20 














Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


164 
369 
426 
303 
342 


2,086 
3,871 
2,964 
2,280 
3,790 


2,250 
4,240 
3,390 
2,583 
4,132 


1,937 
3,862 
2,826 
2,164 
3,762 


86.0 
91.0 
83.3 
83.7 

91.0 


313 
378 
564 
419 
370 


District Totals 


1,604 


14,991 


16,595 


14,551 ' 


87.6 


2,044 


District 21 














Forsyth 


3,157 


17,218 


20,375 


16,253 


79.7 


4,122 


District 22 














Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 


218 
872 
114 
931 


1,177 

7,237 

805 

5,161 


1,395 

8,109 

919 

6,092 


1,285 

7,267 

788 

5,078 


92.1 
89.6 
85.7 
83.3 


110 

842 

131 

1,014 


District Totals 


2,135 


14,380 


16,515 


14,418 


87.3 


2,097 


District 23 














Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


32 

89 

343 

96 


268 

794 

2,934 

826 


300 

883 

3,277 

922 


275 

713 

2,787 

818 


91.6 
80.7 
85.0 
88.7 


25 
170 
490 
104 


District Totals 


560 


4,822 


5,382 


4,593 


85.3 


789 


District 24 














Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


138 

86 

75 

305 

108 


478 
424 
269 
1,004 
437 


616 

510 

344 

1,309 

545 


483 
444 
287 
894 
396 


78.4 
87.0 
83.4 
68.2 
72.6 


133 

66 

57 

415 

149 


District Totals 


712 


2,612 


3,324 


2,504 


75.3 


820 


District 25 














Burke 


383 
966 
619 


3,715 
4,017 

6,034 


4,098 
4,983 
6,653 


3,669 
3,619 
6,023 


89.5 
72.6 
90.5 


429 

1,364 

630 


District Totals 


1,968 


13,766 


15,734 


13,311 


84.6 


2,423 


District 26 
















7,853 


34,281 


42,134 


34,534 


81.9 


7,600 


District 27A 















Gaston 



2,44! 



13,164 



15,607 



13,367 



85.6 



2,240 



156 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/82 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/83 


District 27B 














Cleveland 


328 


3,995 


4,323 


3,946 


91.2 


377 


Lincoln 


212 


2,244 


2,456 


2,266 


92.2 


190 


District Totals 


540 


6,239 


6,779 


6,212 


91.6 


567 


District 28 














Buncombe 


1,101 


10,329 


11,430 


10,382 


90.8 


1,048 


District 29 














Henderson 


535 


3,361 


3,896 


3,151 


80.8 


745 


McDowell 


216 


1,670 


1,886 


1,527 


80.9 


359 


Polk 


76 


520 


596 


508 


85.2 


88 


Rutherford 


466 


2,908 


3,374 


2,632 


78.0 


742 


Transyl vania 


108 


980 


1,088 


917 


84.2 


171 


District Totals 


1,401 


9,439 


10,840 


8,735 


80.5 


2,105 


District 30 














Cherokee 


129 


829 


958 


787 


82.1 


171 


Clay 


22 


164 


186 


143 


76.8 


43 


Graham 


52 


311 


363 


326 


89.8 


!7 


Haywood 


549 


2,327 


2,876 


2,569 


89.3 


307 


Jackson 


314 


872 


1,186 


1,088 


91.7 


98 


Macon 


326 


632 


958 


626 


65.3 


332 


Swain 


55 


489 


544 


482 


88.6 


62 


District Totals 


1,447 


5,624 


7,071 


6,021 


85.1 


1,050 


State Totals 


64,880 


400,515 


465,390 


397,420 


85.4 


67,970 



57 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

1982-1983 



WAIVERS 



OTHER 



DISMISSALS 




GUILTY PLEA 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



Guilty pleas continue to represent the largest method of 
disposition of non-motor vehicle cases in the district 



courts. The waivers depicted here are worthless check 
cases. 



58 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 





Wai 


ver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 






Speedy 






Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Trial 




% Disposed 


Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


147 








25 


19 


12 





19 


14 





58 


.0 


631 


60 


2 


217 


29 


116 





44 


82 





81 


9.8 


729 


9 


11 


180 


163 


152 


1 


36 


130 





4/ 


2.7 


1,142 


12 


30 


435 


160 


84 


4 


53 


271 





93 


3.6 


194 


9 


19 


53 


47 


29 


1 


6 


T'3 





12 


14.4 


2,014 


102 


60 


826 


45 


509 


2 


148 


273 





49 


8.0 


285 


17 





70 


36 


58 





26 


32 





46 


5.9 


5,142 


209 


122 


1,806 


499 


960 


8 


3 32 


820 





>,H6 


6.4 


2,637 


470 


46 


922 


141 


453 





128 


199 





278 


19.5 


380 





16 


94 


70 


63 





59 


29 





49 


4.2 


1,323 


191 


97 


526 


34 


175 





103 


84 





113 


21.7 


204 


16 


8 


17 


16 


62 


1 


22 


4 





58 


11.7 


799 


147 


36 


180 


75 


174 





100 


57 





30 


22.9 


5,343 


824 


203 


1,739 


336 


927 


1 


412 


373 





528 


19.2 


3,934 


293 


220 


1,092 


630 


166 


3 


230 


1,192 





108 


13.0 


4,434 


584 


160 


1,312 


160 


402 





172 


1,292 





35? 


16.7 


507 


14 


25 


114 


82 


44 





22 


178 





28 


7.6 


7,882 


1,375 


879 


2,369 


164 


706 





578 


1,495 





31.7 


28.5 



16,757 2,266 1,284 4,887 1,036 



10,719 



7,200 



1,317 



1,002 4,157 



13,865 2,097 



837 



496 



941 



5,254 357 



309 



3,i 



255 



2,137 



257 



957 


18 


44 


289 


78 


3,797 


238 


89 


1,123 


298 


1,539 


210 


65 


474 


62 


907 


30 


57 


251 


100 



5 38 



4,910 


654 


252 


1,450 


30 3 


5,666 


1,179 


387 


1,704 


172 


4,691 


549 


240 


1,746 


172 



699 



9,682 


822 


297 


3,491 


129 


1,280 


1,037 


15 


12 


389 


128 


180 



15,267 2,382 



879 



4,900 



647 



1,460 



207 

5 31 
205 

155 

1,098 



; 3 / 

549 
500 

1,786 



173 1,857 



1,425 
83 



586 



2,006 
176 



1,508 2,182 






78 


140 





30 1 


854 


2 


136 


119 


3 


71 


152 



1,261 



1 


236 


1,036 





254 


1,162 





463 


928 



805 



230 

94 

284 



824 



21.1 



2,458 


264 


220 


1,011 


7 


69 


1 


114 


286 





486 


19.7 


412 


24 


13 


146 


68 


44 


2 


14 


70 





31 


8.9 


7,765 


1,216 


390 


2,844 


268 


480 





41 


1,112 





1,414 


20.6 


3,230 


593 


318 


1,253 


14 


106 


5 


4 


389 





548 


28.2 



2,479 21.9 



11.5 
2.6 

10.6 






103 


6.4 





36 3 


8.6 





270 


17.8 


o 


88 


9.5 



10.4 






241 


18.4 





259 


27.6 





93 


16.8 



953 



3,126 



593 



21.3 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoi r 
Wayne 

District Totals 



818 


141 


2 


196 


36 


4,502 


168 





1,491 


563 


6,326 


431 


696 


1,866 


15 7 



11,646 



740 



3,553 



756 



67 
352 
389 






88 


184 





259 


1,302 





58 


2,096 



405 



3,582 



104 

367 

633 

1,104 



17.4 

3.7 

17.8 

12.3 



159 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983 







Wa 


>er 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not Guiltv Plea 




































Speedy 
























Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Trial 




% Disposed 




Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


by 


D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


District 9 




























Franklin 


1,861 


306 


72 


529 


43 


249 





311 




302 





49 


20.3 


Granville 


2,065 


301 


165 


728 


h'i 


296 


2 


151 




281 





76 


22.5 


Person 


1,652 


188 


if. 


499 


74 


337 





84 




259 





195 


12.3 


Vance 


2,663 


410 


166 


935 


3 


354 





130 




448 





217 


21.6 


Warren 


884 


63 


40 


201 


82 


177 





52 




228 





41 


11.6 



District Totals 



9,125 1,268 



459 



2,892 



267 



1,413 



728 



1,518 



578 



18.9 



District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



26,775 



3,345 
4,919 
3,623 



248 4,937 8,382 1,133 



414 

66 r > 
842 



421 

517 

66 



922 
1,580 
1,159 



66 

177 




11,887 1,921 1,004 3,661 243 



1,798 



361 
568 
444 

1,373 



2,189 7,043 



223 
251 
183 

657 



564 
804 
519 

1,887 



1,045 19.3 



374 
357 
410 



1,141 



24.9 
24.0 
25.0 

24.6 



District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



20,494 


273 


3,976 


6,712 


216 


1,545 


1,433 


51 


251 


447 


38 


235 



21,927 



2,408 
2,390 
4,125 

8,923 



13,536 



6,288 



1,725 
4,200 

5,925 



324 4,227 7,159 254 



98 
119 
318 



224 

27 

928 



535 1,179 



698 



489 



68 
515 

583 



864 



50 



8 7 


87 



810 

767 

1,296 

2,873 



5,573 



2,766 



350 
1,544 

1,894 



263 

254 

96 

613 



170 



608 
288 

896 



1,780 



223 
210 
419 

852 



674 



908 



126 

275 

401 



67 

41 



477 



160 
224 

384 



5,697 
235 



108 5,932 









102 

70 
127 


570 
830 
723 





299 


2,123 





552 


4,023 



1,135 



259 
1,058 

1,317 



2,008 
135 



449 



293 



67 
296 

363 



20.7 
21.0 



2,143 20.7 






118 


13.3 





113 


6.1 





218 


30.2 



19.2 



1,148 11.5 



8.5 



8.9 
12.2 

11.3 



Robeson 
Scotland 


8,620 
3,025 


1,182 
332 


55 
34 


4,184 
1,383 


66 

118 


997 

368 



1 


1,037 
214 


662 
209 






437 
366 


14.3 
12.0 


District Totals 


11,645 


1,514 


89 


5,567 


184 


1,365 


1 


1,251 


871 


f) 


803 


13.7 


District 17A 


























Caswell 
Rockingham 


731 
6,180 


32 

361 



38 


160 
2,062 


36 

440 


220 
1,263 






70 

232 


131 
793 







82 

991 


4.3 
6.4 


District Totals 


6,911 


393 


38 


2,222 


476 


1,483 





302 


924 


o 


1,073 


6.2 


District 17B 


























Stokes 


1,031 
2,934 


Vi 
249 


36 



207 
669 


67 
129 


110 
329 


2 




73 
236 


245 
630 


f) 

f) 


241 
692 


8.3 
8.4 


District Totals 


3,965 


299 


if 


876 


196 


439 


2 


309 


875 





933 


8.4 


District 18 



























Guil ford 



25,185 



292 



(,'!(, 



9,570 1,517 



2,747 



VI 



7,165 



2,712 



3.5 



160 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983 





Total 
Disposed 


Wai 


ver 


Guilty Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 


Prelim. 
Hearing 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 




District 19A 


Magis- 
trate 


Clerk 


Magis- 
Judge trate 


Judge 


Magis- 
trate 


% Disposed 
By Waiver 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 


4,651 
3,668 


358 

110 


224 
124 


1,412 327 
1,068 173 


892 
985 




1 


436 
525 


632 

404 






370 
278 


12.5 

6.3 


District Totals 


8,319 


468 


348 


2,480 500 


1,877 


1 


961 


1,036 





648 


9.8 


District 19B 
























Montgomery 
Randolph 


2,104 

4,085 


209 

745 


n 



378 473 
1,279 39 


344 
571 






165 
373 


502 
983 






33 

95 


9.9 
18.2 


District Totals 


6,189 


954 





1,657 512 


9i r , 





538 


1,485 





128 


15.4 


District 20 
























Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


1,937 
3,862 
2,826 
2,164 
3,762 


197 
533 

192 
314 
558 




376 

52 

IS 

6 


500 143 
948 112 
786 116 
605 147 
1,090 55 


424 
449 
530 
185 
826 








? 


278 
314 
236 
215 
339 


353 
696 
560 
440 
610 




I) 
(1 
f) 




42 

434 
154 
243 
276 


10.1 
23.5 
8.6 
15.2 
14.9 



District Totals 



14,551 1,794 



449 



3,929 573 



2,414 



1,382 2,659 



1,349 



15.4 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 

Alleghany 
Aske 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 



District 24 



Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



16,253 



1,860 



5,073 



68 



1,285 


32 


19 


333 


182 


7,267 


341 


140 


2,202 


304 


788 


50 


18 


218 





5,078 


350 





1,841 


274 


14,418 


773 


17/ 


4,594 


760 


275 


22 


3 


75 


17 


713 


50 


79 


196 


60 


2,787 


186 


88 


756 


67 


818 


58 


9 


282 


44 


4,593 


316 


179 


1,309 


188 


483 


97 





46 


47 


444 


21 


2 


47 


24 


287 


13 





106 


7 


894 


10? 


40 


174 


12 


396 


8 


1 


55 


99 



District Totals 



2,504 



241 



43 



428 



189 



3,264 



124 

873 

99 

560 

1,656 



77 
126 
786 

1/4 

1,163 



60 
43 
4? 
86 
70 

301 



1,555 3,038 






34 


417 


1 


166 


2,028 





36 


260 


2 


212 


1,539 


3 


448 


4,244 


1 


14 


54 





12 


124 


4 


151 


453 





35 


IS 2 



212 



78 3 



26 


118 


18 


199 


14 


82 


10 


273 


29 


94 



1,394 



144 

1,212 

107 

300 



1,763 



9/ 



766 



438 



2 3 

J 94 
40 

433 



11.4 



3.9 
6.6 
8.6 
6.8 

6.5 






12 


9.0 





66 


18.0 





296 


9.8 





64 


8.1 



10.7 



20.0 
5.1 
4.5 

15.8 
2.2 

11.3 



District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 



3,669 


298 


209 


849 


124 


3,619 


248 





994 


334 


6,023 


5 35 


130 


1,991 


244 



13,311 1,081 



339 3,834 



702 



312 

226 
533 

1,071 






504 


1,065 





222 


1,029 





592 


1,488 



1,318 3,582 



308 

566 

510 

1,384 



13.8 

6.8 

11.0 

10.6 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 



34,534 1,113 



13,367 



3,946 
2,266 

6,212 



749 



425 
225 

650 



22 

4 
89 

93 



10,179 3,480 
4,145 



1,217 
627 

1,844 



485 



45 
235 



2,577 
1,285 



"124 
258 

582 



2,340 11,075 



133 4,447 



323 
151 

474 



1,225 
460 

1,685 



3,763 



2,101 



38 3 
221 

604 



3.2 



5.7 



10.8 
13.8 

11.9 



161 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 



ct 28 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
State Totals 



Waiver 



Guilty Plea 



Not Guilty Plea 



Speedy 



Total Magis- Magis- 

Disposed trate Clerk Judge trate 



Magis- Prelim. Dismissal Trial % Disposed 

Judge trate Hearing by D.A. Dismissal Other By Waiver 



■ 


10,382 


1,082 


453 


5,277 


43 


437 


3 


815 


1,345 





927 


14.7 


District 29 


























Hen :e rson 
McDowell 

■ 
Rutherford 

Transyl vania 


3,151 

1,527 

508 

2,632 

917 


2 
100 

22 
259 

37 


5 

>: 
4 
1 

49 


1,132 
612 
168 
849 
333 


593 

162 



L54 

148 


63 

12 
13 

270 
19 






i 



L94 
123 

45 
L02 

53 


1,026 
358 

148 

',?',(» 
244 










136 
24 

108 

408 

34 


.2 

8.3 
5.1 
9.8 
9.3 


District Totals 


8,735 


420 


S7 


3,094 


1,057 


485 


3 


517 


2,362 





710 


5.8 


District 30 



























7P< 
143 
326 
2,569 
1,088 
626 
482 



4 
1 
1 

1 1 :-' 
19 
20 
20 



6,021 183 
397,420 28,240 



IK 

6 

4 

43 

21 

12 





201 
42 
56 
813 
168 
147 
110 



3 
12 

58 

6 r , 
174 
1 -i't 

94 



104 1,537 545 
22,428 130,971 19,761 



9 

11 
35 
144 
13 
30 
28 

270 
42,585 



96 

11 
14 
291 
80 
80 
22 



256 
46 

99 

1,049 

269 

144 
191 



8 594 2,054 

67 24,582 92,732 



200 
13 
58 
42 

343 
54 
16 



726 

2 36,052 



2.7 
4.8 
1.5 
6.2 
3.6 
5.1 
4.1 

4.7 
12.8 



162 



O ro r- * o o ro «— • CO 



m co> <o> CD < 



t£) O ^ LO 







• 
Q 
















m 












c 
e 


ao 


CM 


i— ' LO lo O CM o 


CNJ 






.-= 


.-j 


























o 














Q. 


o 












.a 


SO 












Q 




r*. 


MflcooinH 


^T 










CM 


LO 


CD 




M 


r* 








H 




s 










as 




a 

U 


o 








p 








r^ 


COWkDnmiD 






o 


,J, 




t-H UO r— l t—t LT) 


r-- 


o 




C 


« 




- 1 


CNJ 


u 




< 










u 






o 


, — i 


(M "^ n MID N 


co 








CM 


O I) (T^ O0 f^ N 


r-^ 


C") 




o 




LO "X) CTi r- < CT> CNJ 


r*-. 


00 








* 






oc 


c 
a 

1 


u 

< 


o 


O O O LO o o 


o 


mNOCMOn 


r-. 


m 


L. 


CM 


i— • i— » CM «~ < C\J «-H 


i — i 




« 












> 














— 


c 


V 


ro 


LO ON i— i O CNJ ^t" 


vo 



w 
Set 



H 


Urn 
OB 




■o 


Z 


Im 


"3 




o 
a. 


N^ 


3 


t- 


tr 


CD 


a 




a 


W 


T3 






CD 


W 






< 


O 

a. 






U 


5 






w 


i/) 




in 


hJ 






A 


U 






NN 





^^ 




5G 




in 


w 


V 


Q 




> 


ex 
< 




90 


a 


c 


U 


O 

90 


o 


Si 

g 


"7 


H 


00 


■a 
c 


*n 


O 


o 

f»5 


a. 




§ 


o 

s 

< 


e 


■ 


NO 


rL, 


z 

o 


ad 

■3 


*C 


z 


c 




o 


J 


0, 




o 


< 


u 


B 
.2 




z 


OS 

f I 


4* 



n h ai m <d- «j in c\j 
-^ co cnj <tf- on <— < co «3- 

f— HONHHOCSJ «— • 



O <=r <d- co o •— I CNJ 



or\jomo«JH cnj 



o ro o r». o lo o lo 



-h o^r^-ooroo «-• 



.-< ro 



lo o o o o o o 



r-H cnj ro 

LO r-t LO 



O O r-- co o 



O ON LO CO <0 CO 



rtNOiom 

LO ro CNJ <— I r*- 



o o o o o o 

N^HHQl CO 



CNJ ON O I— I O 



r^ o co ^j- cti 

CO CO CNJ O ON 

lo ro ro cnj r^. 



ro LO LO LO 


O 


«t COP>. CO 


p** 


O LO 


LO 


LO CNJ »-h O 


Ol 


ro cnj r— i ro 




LO CNJ LO CO 


P-- 


CNJ »— 1 


CO 


CNJ CO .-H 


UJ 


f— • i— l CNJ 


LO 


i — i t— I 


CO 


«— • 


1 — 1 


i-H 


, — 1 



LO LO LO CO 

«3- lo r-- 



CM LO ■^j" LO 



ld tTi co cm 

LD CO CO Ol 
CM LD <* 



co «* ld r-~- 

LO ^f CM CM 
O CO CO LO 



LD CM *— < 



O O O O O 



CO O CM CM 



<3" «d" 1^ CM 
CO CO o CO 

ct^ «a- lo co 



o o o o 



LO CO t— 1 ^J" 



CO CM LO O 
LO i—1 LD CO 
^J- -^ l~~ CM 



co ■— < r-~ i— i o 



CO O LO O O CO 



«=}- CM CM O O CO 



LO CM ■— I O O CO 



o o o o o 



oomr^LO lo 

^}- ^ LO ID 



o o o o 



r-~ ** O i— i 



CMNOC0 
C\J ro ^ n 
I— I LD CM 



o o o o 



i — i ld r"*« 



LO LO 



o co co 



LO CO CO 



r-H CM CO 



i— < CM CO 



cr> 


rtMCO 


r -* 




CO .— < 


ID 


C 


o o o 


o 


CO 


^3" LO CO 


cr 



CO CO LD CTi CO 



CNI r- 


Ol 


r^- r-. on r-^ 


CO ro 




LO ON co o 


LO O 


r^ 


on r» LO ON 



O •* LD i— I i-H 
.-H t-H CO 



CO CO CO CM i-H 

■=T ^H r-H ^f- CM 



o o o o 



£. ^< 



ftj o* 


5 & 


u < 


2 if 


fa 




o 


St 

"5 .5 


CD 


1 = 


U 


a. 


a 




< 





LOr^CNlLOr^LOCNJ LO 



C> CO cnj ^j- ro 



h- i-H LO CO 
ON LO P*n 



^t- O O «d- 



•— < CNI CNI 



LO ON LO <d- 
O CNJ CO LO 

cnj «— i r^-. co 



LO i-H 


C-. 


CTi <T> *f CM 


CM LO 


t.-l 


Lj- LO CO LO 


CM CM 


^r 


<a- --I 



O r-^ CO LO LO 



1— I [-> 



*a S s- cu OJ cr cr 
E O s- S- +-* lo S- 

13 JT 3 fO A3 A3 cu 

UUUQLOQ.Q. 



L- 






1 


CT, 


O 




c 




c 


f- 






(|J 




J 


(11 


4-> 


^ 


r 


tri 


"O 


L. 


L. 


VI 


aj 


>^ 


H3 


>, 


<^ 



CD O 

s- c u 

cu co ■!- 

4-> > r— +J 

O U D- CL 



^ 01 •— 


n 


CL C L^ 


;- 


03 O C 


n- 


Q ^0 O 


LO 



•f— IS) 



<D CD 

s: a. 



X V. B -r- 

CD tJ O "3 S- 



0J 13 0J O 



163 



i—iKO^t «— I 



cm co in 



a s 

z J. 



OlD W 


oo 


VO OO 


oo 


O ^J" VO 


VO VO CM 


<a 


CM CM 


<1 


vo oo in 



X. 

H 
— 

c 
u 

&s 
5 8 

> 
w s 

St 

2 -g 

< 2. 

Ug 

> 






o « 
O * 

£^ 

■ vc 

Z M 

o ^ 

Z £ 



O LO LO 


1 — . 


lo «— < o 


r^ 


O --* f^ LD LT) 


LD LO «— • 


«tf 


--<nco 


CNJ 


cvj cm co lo *— i 


H^n 


^~^ 


cm co 


LO 





lo cm «=r 


CM 


LO •— I 


LO 


CM ^f i— * 


ai lo lo 


«- • 


CO *fr 


CM 


lo cm cn 



o — 
G * 



CO OS lo 

OKI 

r-» r-. co 



c rHM 

o o «3" 
CT> ^3- i— ' 



po ^j- co i— i 



•a « ~ — 



o o o 

HHC\| 
CM CM CO 



O LO ■— « r^- 

t— « LD CTi LO 

CT. LO LO CM 

■a- ld «3- LO 



C J, 



M — 



"3 s 

5 2 



CO «3" CT> •— • 
CM ^3" CM O 

<— < CM 



r-- lo r^ 

lo ^ m 

CO o 



n c\j in 

CM CO LO 
(^ CM LO 



m «a- co 



CO CM LO 

•— < C" CM 
CO LO CO 



O CO LO D*. 



MN cx> 



t— * CO LO LO LO 
CO CM O^ i— < LD 

kO CO <* co rv 



o o o o o o 

1^. CO LO CO LO LO 



LO CO CM CM «— I CM 



*— < LO CM CO ^J- LO 
LO LO LO LO CO CM 

CO O LO LO CO i-i 



i-H CO 



I— 1 <^" LO 


r-H 


LO LD LO 


r- 


rrcriyj^o 


LO CO LO 


1— < 


CT> LO 


un 


t— I i— i i— 1 CM CM 



r-. CM CM 


,-H 


<=r lo lo 


LO 


lo o «— « r-- lo 


CM CO CTi 


a 


rOHH 


LO 


LO LO r-H O^ LO 


LO «3- CO 


^j- 


CO CO 


r- < 


r— 1 i— 1 I— 1 



i— I CO 



cvj r^ 
r-- i— I 
CVJ UD 


«1 
CO 


CO 
CO 


t— 1 uo 
CVJ VO 

CVJ ^H 

«3- 


VO 

CO 
CO 


CO 
CO 
CO 


UD 


oo 
oo 

«3 


en 
CNJ 


VO CO 
.— 1 UD 
OO r-H 

CVJ «*■ 


oo 

oo 

CO 


CO 
CVJ 

CO 


O --I 
CO o 
r-- cvj 

CVJ t-H 


CO 

oo 

CO 


CM 

ud 
oo 


o 

VD 


CO 


CO 
O 


O O 


o 


o 


o o 


o 


o 


LD 


o 


© 


CO r> 


•53 


lO 


CVJ CVJ 
>=J- CVJ 


o 

«5I 


CVJ 

Cvj 


CVJ 
CO 


Cvj 


CM 


CVJ CVJ 


VO 


r^ 


cvj r-^ 


O 


<* 


UD 


cr- 


CM 


CO CO 


uo 
CO 


o 


CO "=f 
VO CO 


VO 


en 

CO 


UD 
UD 


CO 
CO 


^J 



-?hw CO 
CO CT> LO CO 



«3- co r^- 

CJl CO CM 



CO CD CO 



l-*. LO CM 



CO O LO CO 

OCMM CM 

«3- co ^h cr. 

CM CM <3" CO 



o r^ i-i co 



p*^ r-^ *t oo 



oo r~~ oo 


'J 


rH CO 


oo 


ONin 


rHCOCO 


OO 


O •-! 


T—H 


^i- o o 


CVJ CM i—l 


<o 


CO >-H 


si 


■H<vjro 



< I = 


x 



* " 






LO r^- LO CM 



r^. o lo co 
r~- *$■ ■^- , <^ 
lo r-* co r*- 



CO CM LO LO 



■— « rj- i— » lO 
^3" LO CO CM 

^r cm r^- 



o o o o o 



CO N N O CO CO 



O LO «d- 


r^. 


CO en 


CO 


O O CM 


ro co <* 


CO 


CO CM 


CO 


LO CJTt ^ 



i— 1 VO oo 


CM 


cvj r-~ 


r j 


o vo vo 


.-h o oo 


CO 


vo «* 


vo 


r^ cvj CM 



O CO CO 
UD CO CM 
CO M" CO 



O •-< r-H 
O VO VO 
U0 t-H VO 



00 VO CM 
«3" UD VO 
CM •* ^3- 



C7. '/-. r— -r- 



ro 3 t— 
i— I- O 

ca co u 



164 



tO PO CTi 



C\J ^f \£) 







Q 3 






<»* p» 






C — 






O 00 






.r "" 






s 






a. o 






2 oo 






a 2 


cn 




« 2 


H 




1 


« 




2 - 


P 




O M 


O 




8 * 

M 


u 




< 

O 


H 




« 


U 




00 


o 


M 


<"S 






90 

©\ 


c 

.2 «. 
-n M 

5 < 

s 


75 


la 

S3 


NN 


<U 




Q 


>- 


S a 








S3 

u 


"2 


H 


•a 


Z 


,g 


2 S 
o 5. 


1— : 


3 


H J5 


cn 


Q 


S 


w 


■a 




en 


Ed 




< 


o 
a 




U 


5 




w 


i« 




J 


9J 

l/l 




u 


S3 

u 




»— 1 


o 


01 ro 


> 


< 


a a 

■— ' 00 


tf 


■a 
c 


8 • 

w 00 


o 


5 - 


H 


90 




o 


© 
rn 

SO 


a. 


S 


2 2 


z 

o 


ox 

•3 


< * 


z 


e 

01 


* 


N-! 


a. 


o 


< 


Efl 


c 


z 


u 


.2 «• 
8 < 


S 


v. 

o 


s 


« 


Efl 

Sv 




on 


M 


§ & 


u 


< 




u. 






o 




u 
■5 = 


en 






w 




«2 


o 






< 







--V °^ 



w ^* LO 



en en 


00 


"X) o 


vo 


ro i-h 


^J 


r-^ ai 


ro «c3- 


o? 


o <*o 


r- , 


CO 


ro 


C\J CT. 



Cn t— 1 I-H 



in r-~ 
ro id 


CM 

o 
O 


CO ID 
,-H ID 

i— i r~~ 


CO 


r-. co 

ID CM 
ID «M- 


in 

cn 
o 


t—i on 
co *3- 


r-i CO 


m 


r-. CM 


on 


LO 


ID 


CM 


o o 


o 


o o 


o 


o o 


o 


o o 


O ro 
CM CM 


CM 
CM 


CM ID 

CM I— I 


CM 


ai o 

•—< CM 


o 

CM 


^3- r-~ 

CM CM 



r^ (Ti KO 



O i-H 


co 


CM O 


cri 


00 CM 


oj 


co i~~ 


ro «d- 


ro 


<3" CO 


ro 


CM CO 


CO 


CO CO 



ID O 


ID 


o in 


LO 


I-H O 


<— i 


>-i "3" 


CM O 


CM 


CM CM 


■=J- 


CO CO 




CO CO 


r-^ cm 


a-. 


ID O 


UD 


r^ •— i 


en 


o en 



uo ^J- o~i 



c\j a^ i-h 



o o 


O 


^H CO 


Ol 


O CO 


m 


rH ■* 


If) 


^J- CO 


r>- 


l—l 


rH 



>* O 


•=* 


in in 


o 


f-H CO 


r^ cm 


en 


in ^d- 


o 


in <—i 



T-l «t LO 



.-H CsJ CO 



CM fO LO 



oro ro 



LO <JD t— 4 



o o 


o 


O O 


o 


in o 


o 


o o 


■3" O 
CM CO 


en 
CM 


o CO 

cm r^ 


CM 
CM 


en <3- 

CM 


CM 


•=t ro 

CM CM 


CO CO 


00 


en o 


r~- 


co «*■ 


r-.. 


in o 


CM CTl 
■3- O 


rj 
en 


i£> in 
"3- o 




ro r^- 


IX) 


CO .— 1 



<y\ i — 


ID 


r-~ in 


CM 


ID i-H 


r-v 


en o 


.— i ro 


in 


ro o 


"* 


in <3- 


en 


en en 


CM l£) 


CO 


en ro 


CM 


>d- 


«■ 


CM 



CT\ ID 


in 


CO l£> 


Ol 


•JSrHOJCM 


CM 


l£> *3" 


I-* 


ID "* 


o 


^■IDCMrHtJ 


o_. 



in cr> 


"H, 


r-s 


«*■ 


^-( 


m 


r-. 


I— | 


^J 


ID 


ro 


•a- in 


c- 


O 


CO 


^r 


in 


ro 


r-. 


LH 


r^ 


cn 


ro cm 


ID 


CM 


l£> 


Oj 


CM 


ro 








o 


^- ^H 


in 


rt 


cn 


o 


^_ 


ic 


in 


^ 


CO 


•JD 


in co 


CO 


ID 


CO 


m 




in 




CM 


r^- 


r^ 


r-H CM 


^r 


r^. 


i — i 


cn 


lO 


ro 


lO 


cr. 


■=t 


cn 
























^J- CO 


r-* 


1-1 


ro 


^3- 


1-1 


ro 


OJ 


rH 


CO 


CJ 


o o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


cm en 


r4 


^^ 


r4 


CO 


a.. 


r-^ 


un 


CO 


uo 


r-- 


CM i-H 


CJ 


CM 


CO 


CM 


CM 


F"H 


l—l 


--^ 


i-H 


rH 



«a- o-. on 



id *-H r-- 



ro ^- in 
r^ o co 

CM i-H 



o cn cn 



•-H CO 


cr. 


"3- in 


in id 




o co 


ID ID 


ro 


•— o 



CM >a- ID 



O on on 



id in i-h 



Hin id 



in -^ id 



«3- on cm r~- co 



I s - cm id ^t CM i-H 

CO ID CM ID ID in 

cn co oo i-t r~» in 

•-H CO CM CM CO >3- 



i— I .— I CO 



in id 


, — 1 


in *j- 


cn 


co r-~ cri <3- <m 


CM 


CM OS 




O on 


cr, 


^roNtsn. 




CO CM 


ID 


CM "3" 


KO 


CM CM t-H t— 1 CM 


i-H 



o o o o o 



■HiHCONlO ID 



r^ id 
on CO 

.-H CM 


CO 
CM 


CM O 

co m 


in 


<3" cn CM «3" 1 — 

lOWNOrv 

CM CM «— 1 


in 


un co 
o in 
r-~ cri 


in 
ID 


r^ cm 

CM CM 
CM id 


cn 

OJ 


ro CO ^t CTI O 
t-H r-. id i-H r^ 
ro ro in ^3- co 


o 



r 1. o -r- 



o u Q •<- 



f — cn -i- 



ro O CJ ■<- 



Or- S- 

cn o +-> 

-t-J "O in 

C C -r- 



g >, 

c ai E i— c 
o s- x: c o 

l/l O U (V -r- 
C O •■- ■I-' c 
< SCCOOZJ 



165 



in <-• n r^ c^ lo 



a> cm cm ro 



c comrs. 



H 

P 
C 

u 

2 * 

fi > 

u 5 

S £ 

Z -s 

w -g 

< §. 

w « 

X o 

O " 






w 3 10 



c 

■ * 

I" 



s< 



"3 

e a. 





Q J. 



r-» «3" LO CO O 

co co c\j ■— < *— • 



r^ O >— 1 o 

«3" lo CO CO 



o o lo o 



IX) 1— < CM LO Cn 



LO ^ CO CO CO 
CO UD CO N 1—1 

cm cm n o <3- 



c — co 



iDnocn co 



LD^Oin 



csj ro oi «=j- 

*d- "^ (\j co 

C\J LO ^3- LO 



OOOO o 

LO «sf- LO LO LO 



LO •-< en CO o 



lo co r-^ CO 

NHCOH 

cm r- r-» co 



O 1 : O ro co n r*» 
c\j co o lo ro o 
co cm cm lo co co 



OOOOO 



LO «— 1 ro CM CTi 



en ^t r~- «d- lo 

co^- coo^cn 
^^■NCOro 



.—I CO P-. 

rsjcvjrv 
ro «3- r- 



lo lo lo 00 

CO LO •— ' LO 

rH O Cn •— ' 

ro n «t r— 1 



CXt CT) en 

LO i-H CM 

LO LO O 

ro ro lo 



lo ro 
*d- O 
ro cm 



O LO 

lo 01 



LO LO CM 

«d- LO i-H 

0"> CM CM 

CO CM CO 



r-> CM cr» 



r^ co lo 



r-. en lo 



z « 

O Q 

z g 

Z rl 



O - 



go 

u 
o 



Z i< 






LO «3" •— < 1— 1 «— » 



OOOO 



CO f— t ^j- LO LO 



.— * ^3- ro .— » 

«-• CO *-• o 



OOOO 



CO ro r-. ro 



lo o O «d- en 

CM N CTi O CO 



^j- r-^ lo ro lo lo 



O lo o o o 

ro LO LO 1— I LO 
ro CM CO CM 



CO lo en cm r-~ LO 

COinLONri LO 

lo cm «d- cnj <^r r^ 

rj- th <j «^- oj ro 



ro lo r-. lo en o 

rO LO LO »-H <3" CM 
.-t «=J- .-( CO 



HON *3" 
LO O LO •— I 

m en *$■ 1—1 



CXt <3" O 

cm lo ro 
«d- ro lo 



00 o 

r- o <a- 

t-H 1 ro cm 



ro en CM 



"O 




1 — 


C '•! 






r3 73 


1. 


ii 


X .r- 






-_ -> 


> 


C]J 


p— "5 


-. 




■a - 


r j 


"— < 



•r- U 



O (U Oi>, 

>> WO -C 3 QJ 

S. -i- U (C u 

O) "O +-> -w c 

> rO '»- ^ T3 

<X ZL 21 2 >- 







i 


U3 






4-> 








u 


I ' 




m 




O 


IIJ 


1 , 


1- 




=: 


"K 


4-> 


s- 


■ > 


<n 


(/) 


■(-> 




+-> 




CO 


10 


m 


Q 




■ ^ 


' j 




r , 



S- r— +-> •!- 



1- Ol •>- 



166 



i5 f^c\j inoro <^> 

*^ on oo t—4 r-~ 



.2 °° r-< 







.a 
Q 


00 


co ai >-h io rv 


LO 


WOst 


en cm 


co o 


LO 


o 








tHHrONst 


o: 


CM 


as lo 


CM CM 


CM 


O.I 


CO 




3 


r" 


1—1 


CM 








CM 


l-H 


H 




§ 
















a 
p 




OB 
U 


O 


OS O «- " O O 


O 


CO sO O 


■* sO 


CM CM 


CO 


ro 




o 




O cm r~- as c\j 




CO CM 


CM o 


^- in 


CO 


CM 






inw oo t— < 


CO 




CM •— < 




LT) 


LT) 


o 




8 


■o 




rt 










.-' 


u 




< 
















in 








o 


WHOIOH 


o 


CM "d" ■— 1 


CO r^ 


as «* 


LO 


co 


H 






sO 


cx) r-~ as as cm 


LO 


COCUN 


in so 


CO CO 


CM 


<* 


r-> 




O 


oo cm oo o r^ 


Oj 


LO t-H CM 


as so 


ir> co 


LO 


co 


00 






CM H CM 


LO 




i-H 




<* 


o 


OS 

en 


00 


C 
















CO 


ON 


« 


V 


O O O C C 


CD 


O O C 


o c 


LT) O 


O 


O 




■5 


ox 
























V 


< 


as c\j *3- lo r--. 


LO 


sJCsIN 


U*> CM 


LT) LO 


sO 


*3 




s 




C\J CM C\J CM CM 


CM 


CO CM CM 


CM co 


j— < CM 


CM 


CM 


N^ 




















Q 


> 
"5 


c 
u 


CU3 


no«tOH 


CO 


CM CM "3" 


in r- 


CM CM 
CO o 


O 
ID 


O 


w 
PC 


O^fs^sO 


«* 


5t 


Iff 
ex 


s 


< 


in cost ^- «3- 


•=* 


sO LT) sO 


cn CO 


CO LO 


CO 


Ln 


H 




















Z 


C 


"3 




a. 

a 


HrvcocsjN 


LO 


NfOsO 


as co 


sO CM 


,— < 


o 


k* 


e 


LOCsJOWH 


ro 


CO ^f CM 


so co 


CM CO 


CM 


CM 


NN 


3 


|-H LO LO LO OS 


r~- 


NrHCO 


LT) o 


sO .3- 


O 


<* 


03 


Q 




ro i— 1 CM 


CO 




CM i— 1 




>X> 


as 


w 


■a 


















CO 


en 


o 
a 




















< 




















u 


l/l 

Q 




















w 


c/l 




so 


LO r — as as co 


"* 


sO«JOCs)CO 


«* r^ 


so 


Lfi 


J 


a> 




m 


CO l-H «s- 


SO 




r^. 


«d- 


«* 


CO 


eh 




A 




CO 






CM 


ro 


as 


u 


















O 


NM 


o 


^^ 
















t-H 


s 




in 

so 


















<X 


m 


r-. cx) lo «t o 


•=3" 


CTs, CTs O 


.— 1 LO 


i— i as 


•5} 


r- 


w 


L/j 


o 


go 


HIT) rHPsCsJ 


CO 


'" H '"' 


CO 


CM 


O 


LO 
lO 


> 


ex 
< 


i 














r^ 


OS 


■a 
c 




o 

oo 
















o 


Cl£ 




cm f— i co ro i— i 


o 


cn «3- co 


CM O 


LO *3" 


r-^ 


CM 


(S 


C 


J, 


^ CM t— 1 LO CSJ 


SD 




•—I CM 




LO 


CO 


H 


00 

e 


■5 

C 


r-i 




^ 










rs~ 


O 
5 


41 

e 


o 
r^ 














•^r 


iC 




< 




at co coco ai 


CM 


O CO CM 




r-. -a- 


CO 


LO 


Z 

o 


OX 

•3 

c 


« 


CO CM 0*1 r-1 


CsJ 


CO 


CM CM 




CO 


SO 
0*1 


z 




o 


i— 1 LO CO CO CO 


ID 


r-. co cm 


rt Oi 


m co 


lo 


o 




SO 


HCOsJUlO 


LTJ 


OltHCO 


r^ ■* 


un co 


LO 


r*s 




o 


«* .— i cm •— i 


CT. 








>!t 


oo 


J 


l/l 
















^j 


< 
z 


















CO 


(Si 


B 




o o o o o 


o 


o o o 


O LD 


O O 


o 


O 




.2 
■5 


01 

so 






r^ LO O «3- O 


CM LO 


o 




st -HCOOl 1 — 


CO 


as 


M 


< 


«t n rss cm co 


co 


LT) CTt CO 


*3" sO 


f— 1 CO 


o 


LO 


s 


e 


s 




,— t .— 1 




*" ' 




co 


1—1 




OS 


ft 

ex 


c 




IDOCsjrON 


^-, 


CslNsf 


sO CO 


CO i-H 


CM 


CM 


< 


■ 


W) 


stsOCO sO CO 


r^ 


sO Crt Ost CO 


r^ vrj 


PH 


CM 


1 


< 


CO OS as SO CO 


O 


.-i r^ >3- 


SO O 


o t 


CO 


CO 






i— 1 CM i-H CM 


CM 


*-H t— < 


i—4 f— 4 


as i-h 


ro 


' — ' 


b 






















o 




*a 




UlOlCOCsJrH 


LT) 


HfON 


r^ CO 


CM CM 


O 


CO 


CO 

w 




O 

H 


'S 


stLf!00<t 1 


O 


r-^ ^j- co 


o as 


CO SO 


LT) 


r-~ 




c 

a. 


r^ co r-~ t— < 


CM 


" 


CO 


CO 


o 


as 
r-s. 


u 




















LO 


< 























o <— 


o 


> 


U 


+-> 


OJ 








LO ■ 


>+- 






u 


d) 


•o C 






s_ ai 


L. 


>l 


i_ 




^ e 


O O 






CD 3 


il) 






S- 


O fd 


O LO 


c 


c 


"D O -* 


c 


c 


LO 




S- >s-£= 


3 -* 


a 




C Q r- 


+^ 


<n 




LO 


CD cd ro 


>, <-> 


o 


CO 


(UOO 


-J 


S_ 


□ 




-tr ^- i- 


03 (13 


to 


< 


3T -E O. 


Ol 


r- 




lJ 


UOC3 


=C O 


;• 


l/l 



167 



RANKINGS FOR THE 34 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

Julv 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 





Judicial 




Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


District Court 




Civil 


Criminal 




Civil 


Criminal 


Judicial 






Non-Motor 


Di\ision 


District 




Felonies Misd 


emeanors 








Vehicle 


: 


; 




13 


11 


30 


20 


23 


12 




2 


24 


l'l 


22 


1 


34 


1') 


1 




3 


20 


7 


13 


11 


14 


22 


14 




4 


31 


14 


15 


22 


20 


30 


8 




5 


10 


9 


1 


26 


12 


28. 


16 




6 


30 


10 


27 


23 


30 


1 


9 




7 


14 


4 


5 


13 


33 


32 


28 




8 


8 


6 


6 


10 


9 


1 ; '. 


15 


:: 


9 


It 


20 


18 


15 


16 


9 


3 




10 


12 


32 


23 


34 


21 


2b 


26 




11 


2 


3 


9 


7 


IP. 


6 


4 




12 


33 


15 


16 


4 


13 


>.] 


23 




13 


21 


34 


30 


19 


27 


18 


13 




14 


1-4 


23 


2g 


25 


2 


21 


21 




15A 


2 3 


21 


14 


6 


11 


2 


11 




15 B 


19 


1 


2 


31 


32 


34 


17 




1£ 


) 


29 


34 


5 


22 


24 


10 


::: 


17A 


1 


'■ 


17 


21 


17 


5 


2 




17B 


4 


16 


8 


3 


10 


11 


5 




IE 


34 


2h 


25 


20 


6 


25 


34 




19.." 


13 


22 


26 


8 


7 


17 


29 




19B 


29 


33 


33 


2 


4 


3 


IP 




20 


26 


M 


4 


17 


19 


2') 


20 




21 


11 


17 


20 


14 


1 


10 


32 




22 


7 


18 


12 


9 


8 


15 


19 




2 3 


22 


24 


28 


18 


15 


4 


24 


: . 


24 


25 


25 


24 


33 


25 


20 


33 




25 


ip 


2 7 


19 


29 


5 


14 


27 




26 


28 


il 


J] 


16 


29 


7 


80 




27A 


3 


12 


3 


2 7 


23 


16 


25 




27B 


5 


2 


10 


12 


3 


8 


6 




28 


5 


11 


7 


28 


24 


12 


7 




29 


i2 


28 


21 


24 


28 


27 


31 




30 


27 


<o 


C 


32 


31 


33 


22 



*Total Caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1982 + new cases filed during the 1982-83 year. A rank of 1 
indicates the highest percentage of total caseload disposed; a rank of 34 indicates the lowest percentage 
of total caseload disposed. 



168 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED" 

July 1, 1982 — June 30, 1983 









Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


District Court 




Civil 


Criminal 


Civil 


Criminal 


Judicial 






Non-Motor 


District 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 








Vehicle 


1 


Camden 


8 


15 


96 


5 


43 


4 


5 




Chowan 


50 


fifi 


17 


84 


90 


90 







Currituck 


12 


;>n 


14 


',4 


52 


8 


1 2 




Dare 


74 


59 


63 


■ in 


82 


fin 


95 




Gates 


■in 


14 


43 


57 


15 


84 


35 




Pasquotank 


M, 


if, 


12 


33 


48 


no 


6 




Perquimans 


(,;■ 


!■', 


57 


0] 


84 


44 


77 


2 


Beaufort 


89 


(-,!', 


73 


3 


98 


34 


2 




Hyde 


79 


9t, 


94 


1 


78 


76 


82 




Martin 


27 


•:," 


4 


78 


89 


70 


7 




Tyrrell 


20 


1 


59 


L8 


51 


85 


8 




Washington 


29 


16 


51 


r, 


fin 


57 


1 


3 


Carteret 


M, 


23 


45 


37 


53 


87 


86 




Craven 


52 


i;"' 


18 


38 


50 


ifi 


59 




Paml ico 


44 


55 


64 


fin 


32 


81 


57 




Pitt 


51 


4 < 


38 


39 


14 


53 


29 


4 


Dup 1 i n 


71 


37 


61 


72 


72 


73 


15 




Jones 


.,<) 


4,' 


1 


34 


93 


94 


94 




Onslow 


92 


',;■ 


70 


77 


35 


9] 


32 




Sampson 


39 


-;4 


10 


fin 


61 


52 


43 


5 


New Hanover 


21 


35 


3 


76 


20 


80 


53 




Pender 


80 


51 


80 


IV,', 


85 


n-; 


87 


6 


Bertie 


f, 


27 


39 


61 


/'» 


20 


4 




Halifax 


76 


33 


83 


88 


77 


2 


51 




Hertford 


97 


2] 


26 


31 


59 


1 


49 




Northampton 


96 


62 


87 


L3 


36 


5 


in 


7 


Edgecombe 


48 


22 


13 


7 


68 


79 


58 




Nash 


17 


18 


4fi 


4/ 


79 


nh 


56 




Wilson 


46 


28 


19 


81 


86 


83 


91 


8 


Greene 


87 


n 


8 


:' 


58 


m 


3 




Lenoi r 


41 


29 


28 


8 


13 


27 


31 




Wayne 


15 


;n 


36 


70 


30 


47 


74 


9 


Frankl in 


55 


fill 


24 


:■',(, 


74 


4fi 


14 




Granville 


42 


73 


77 


19 


1 


46 


22 




Person 


40 


19 


31 


11 


52 


31 


39 




Vance 


49 


76 


40 


t>2 


70 


12 


33 




Warren 


65 


nn 


95 


16 


59 


7 


25 


10 


Wake 


u, 


87 


f,n 


n4 


63 


68 


71 


11 


Harnett 


38 


44 


22 


41 


60 


3 


38 




Johnston 


r > 


1 i 


4 7 


4 


11 


23 


18 




Lee 


7 


17 


16 


fin 


92 


36 


19 


12 


Cumberland 


84 


5< 


44 


27 


33 


88 


68 




Hoke 


63 


5 


21 


12 


44 


21 


44 


13 


Bladen 


28 


fin 


90 


23 


7 


6 


36 




Brunswick 


-<;-■ 


91 


71 


79 


46 


75 


73 




Col umbus 


:■;:.' 


98 


69 


51 


97 


64 


42 


14 


Durham 


43 


66 


75 


73 


6 


54 


65 


ISA 


Alamance 


r,n 


64 


34 


30 


28 


10 


4 7 


15B 


Chatham 


vf, 


10 


5 


42 


80 


IV, 


52 




Orange 


(.1 


6 


27 


n;- 


76 


98 


61 


16 


Robeson 


45 


63 


74 


22 


45 


59 


41 




Scotland 


3 


97 


100 


28 


91 


67 


30 



169 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED" 

July 1, 1982 -June 30, 1983 









Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


District Court 




Civil 


Criminal 


Civil 


Criminal 


Judicial 






Non-Motor 


District 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 








Vehicle 


17A 


Caswell 


2 


2 


7 


;"i 


23 


8) 


13 




Rockingham 


9 


31 


54 


8o 


49 


17 


11 




Stokes 


4 


77 


'•7 


21 


8'i 


24 


23 




Surry 


25 


45 


25 


10 


26 


39 


88 


18 


Guilford 


90 


74 


62 


00 


21 


61 


96 


19 A 


Cabarrus 


58 


81 


79 


43 


37 


78 


62 




Rowan 


12 


38 


40 


82 


8 


1 •: 


80 


19E 


Montgomery 


91 


82 


88 


17 


89 


33 


48 




Randolph 


72 


90, 


85 


l > 


10 


11 


63 


20 


Anson 


88 


84 


30 


97 


88 


86 


84 




Moore 


7 7 


26 


37 


41. 


27 


77 


198 




Richmond 


67 


7 


55 


88 


73 


97 


79 




Stanly 


gg 


49 


41 


88 


94 


63 


79 




Union 


37 


3 


2 


6 


4 


18, 


27 


21 


Forsyth 


31 


80 


56 


45 


3 


89 


88 


22 


Alexander 


')4 


4 


11 


28 


9 


16 


1/ 




Davidson 


16 


8 3 


48 


2" 


17 


;>r, 


46 




Davie 


7(] 


,'2 


55 


14 


39 


100 


66 




Iredell 


11 


50 


72 


40 


31 


42 


78 


23 


Al leghany 


85 


70 


9 


44 


24 


48, 


21 




Ashe 


75 


86 


91 


80 


65 


4 1 


8,8 




Wilkes 


54 


71 


r,8 


63 


38 


') 


70 




Yadkin 


64 


54 


67 


67 


34 


88 


54 


24 


Avery 


78 


78 


72 


88 


55 


8 


90 




Madison 


98 


100 


86 


64 


64 


7 1 


60 




Mitchell 


27 


88 


42 


100 


54 


80 


/(, 




Watauga 


59 


46 


23 


87 


57 


48 


99 




Yancey 


19 


25 


78 


93 


100 


56 


97 


25 


Burke 


86 


95 


82 


8 1 


:? 


51 


48 




Caldwell 


53 


61 


3 3 


89 


16 


40 


98', 




Catawba 


74 


58 


53 


88 


19 


V 


37 


26 


Mecklenburg 


73 


88 


84 


48 


71 


18 


81 


27A 


Gaston 


10 


39 


20 


74 


66 


43 


67 


27B 


Cleveland 


2 


11 


50 


49 


5 


,-: 


24 




Lincoln 


13 


57 


15 


24 


18 


18 


16 


22 


Buncombe 


22 


40 


32 


80 


67 


37 


34 


29 


Henderson 


95 


47 


58 


80 


40 


09 


84 




Mc Dowel 1 


31 


72 


6 


8,9 


41 


14 


83 




Polk 


68 


89 


98 




12 


80 


69 




Rutherford 


93 


8,0 


90 


:8 


83 


1,8 


09 




Transylvania 


47 


22 


93 


'If 


09 


98; 


72 




Cherokee 


21 


93 


81 


98, 


95 


88 


80 




Clay 


1 


4;-. 


92 


78 


47 


74 


93 




Graham 


18 


79 


89 


;0 


8 


r: 


45 




Haywood 


81 


75 


76 


87 


42 


88 


50 




Jackson 


83 


67 


02 


8,8 


96 


80 


20 




Macon 


100 


94 


97 


99 


87 


89 


100 




Swa i n 


15 


4 1 


09 


71 


83 


08 


80 



Cases pending on July 1, 1982 + new cases filed during the 1982-83 year. A rank of 1 indicates 
age of total caseload disposed; a rank of 100 indicates the lowest percentage of total 
'.ed. 



170 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 2599